CAR_Public/111107.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 7, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 220

                             Headlines

AES CORP: Bokoshe Residents File Class Action Over Fly Ash
AFFINION GROUP: Appeal From Denial of Arbitration Still Pending
AFFINION GROUP: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion for Arbitration
AFFINION GROUP: Plea to Consolidate & Transfer Class Suits Pending
AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Continues to Defend Class Suits

AMEDISYS INC: Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Proceedings Pending
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Fact Discovery in NY Suit to Close Feb. 24, 2012
BATTAT INC: Recalls 99,300 Toulouse-LapTrec Magnetic Sketchboards
BEST BUY: Sued for Selling Fake Car Speakers
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Tariffs

DUTAILIER GROUP: Recalls 440 Drop-Side Cribs Due to Fall Hazard
GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 13,000 Hunting Knife Sets
GREAT ATLANTIC: "LaMarca" Suit Remains Stayed Due to Bankruptcy
IKEA NORTH: Recalls 2,200 Wardrobe Mirror Doors
K-V PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action

KIDDIELAND TOYS: Recalls 12,000 Disney-branded Fairies Trikes
KOSS CORP: Reaches Settlement in Principle in Wisconsin Class Suit
PEET'S COFFEE: Net Income Includes $3.2MM Anticipated Settlement
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Unit Paid Judgment in "Scott" Suit in August
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Sept. 14 Trial Set for "Brown" Suit in Calif.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in Appeal in "Sateriale" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Lights" Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Remains Stayed in Louisiana
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Jones" Suit in Missouri

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend 6 Class Suits in Canada
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Tatum" Suit in N. Carolina
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK
STRYKER CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Michigan

TEXTRON INC: Appeal From Shareholder Class Suit Dismissal Pending
TEXTRON INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Class Suit
TOWN SPORTS: Continues to Defend "Cruz" Suit in New York
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Inverter Assembly
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Judge Allows Royalty Class Action to Proceed

U.S. BANK: Sued Over "Worthless" Flood Insurance Coverage




                          *********

AES CORP: Bokoshe Residents File Class Action Over Fly Ash
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary L. Crider, writing for Times Record, reports that six Bokoshe
residents filed a lawsuit in LeFlore County District Court on
Oct. 6, hoping it will be certified as a class-action suit and
will result in closing a nearby coal/fly ash and produced water
disposal site.

The suit was filed by attorneys Clark O. Brewster and J. Randall
Miller, both of Tulsa, and Harlan E. Hentges of Edmond, Okla., on
behalf of William and Diane Reese, Herman Tolbert, Tim Tanksley,
Susan Holmes and Charles Tackett.

The suit's petition is filed on behalf of all residents or
property owners within a three-mile radius of the fly ash and the
water disposal pit as well as those who own property within 1,000
yards of the fly ash transport route between Panama and the
disposal pit about a mile southeast of Bokoshe.  In asking for
class-action certification, the lawsuit contends the class is so
numerous it wouldn't be practical to name all its members.

"It is believed that there are over 450 residents in and around
Bokoshe, Oklahoma, whose person and/or property have been polluted
or exposed to harmful and toxic substances," the suit states.

The suit alleges the improper practices and omissions of 24
defendants, including people and businesses associated with the
waste disposal operation, are responsible for the injuries and
damages, including mental distress and physical harm, including
death; loss of property value; contamination of air, soil and
water; and loss of use and enjoyment of their property.

According to online court records, none of the named defendants
has yet filed a response to the lawsuit.

The defendants are AES Corp. of Arlington, Va., and its
subsidiaries that operate the coal-fired Panama power plant; the
owner/operator of the fly ash and produced water disposal pit near
Bokoshe, MMHF, aka Making Money Having Fun, Clean Hydro
Reclamation and Clean Hydro Evacuation; Thumbs Up Ranch, which has
about 150 acres permitted for storage and disposal of the AES
power plant fly ash, and its owners; fly ash waste transporters
and produced water transporters and other related businesses.

The lawsuit contends the defendants' improper transport, storage
and disposal of fly ash, produced when coal is burned, caused
injuries and damages.  It states the ash contains arsenic, barium,
boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt and other harmful pollutants.

It also contends the defendants' improper storage and disposal of
water from oil and gas well operations in Oklahoma and Arkansas
also caused injuries and damages.

The lawsuit asks the court for injunctions permanently prohibiting
further disposal of fly ash or produced water and mandating clean-
up of air, soil and water.

It also asks that the defendants establish funds to pay for
monitoring the environment and for monitoring Bokoshe residents
for adverse health effects.

It asks for more than $75,000 in compensatory damages for
injuries, and more than $75,000 in punitive damages for the
plaintiffs and the purported class action lawsuit members.

In a news release issued via the Bokoshe Environmental Cause
group's intheairwebreathe.com Web site on Nov. 1, the group
alleges the residents' class action lawsuit was necessary because
"AES has poisoned their town with fly ash produced at the
company's nearby Shady Point power plant and is dumped into an
abandoned mine operated by a company known as Making Money Having
Fun."

The news release alleges that more than half of 30 households near
the dumpsite have experienced cancer, that nine of 16 children in
one Bokoshe Elementary School class suffer from asthma, and that
residents suffer from a variety of respiratory illnesses.

According to the news release, Bokoshe residents contend the
defendants actively misled the community about the safety of coal
ash.

"We are like a lot of Americans upset with big corporations, Wall
Street and the government for not responding to the needs of the
people.  They don't listen to us.  We decided if anything is going
to be done, we'll have to do it ourselves," said Sharon Tanksley.

The environmental group formed in February 2009 to seek government
help addressing, and to raise public awareness of, the perceived
pollution issue, according to the Web site.


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal From Denial of Arbitration Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc.'s appeal from the denial of its motion to
compel arbitration in a class action lawsuit in Connecticut is
still pending, according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, and California False Advertising Law. On
September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On
March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration. The Company does not know when the appeal will
be decided. Notwithstanding the appeal, the case is currently
proceeding in the district court.


AFFINION GROUP: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion for Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on its motion to
compel arbitration of claims in a class action lawsuit pending in
New York, according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On November 10, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company, Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant"), 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A. in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint
asserts various causes of action on behalf of several putative
nationwide classes that largely overlap with one another. The
claims asserted are in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of
its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and New York's General Business Law. On April 6, 2011, the
Company and Trilegiant filed a motion to compel individual (non-
class) arbitration of the plaintiff's claims. The Company's co-
defendant, 1-800-Flowers.com, joined in the motion to compel
arbitration, and co-defendant Chase Bank filed a motion to stay
the case against it pending arbitration, or alternatively to
dismiss. The Company does not know when the court will issue a
ruling on these motions.


AFFINION GROUP: Plea to Consolidate & Transfer Class Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to consolidate class action lawsuits against Affinion
Group, LLC, is pending with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s October 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On July 13, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Affinion Group, LLC ("AGLLC"), Trilegiant Corporation
("Trilegiant"), Apollo Global Management LLC, and Chase Bank USA,
N.A., in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona. The complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf
of putative nationwide classes in connection with the sale by
Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act, and state common law. The case was recently
filed and there has been no substantive activity in the case.

On July 14, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against AGLLC,
Trilegiant Corporation, Apollo Global Management, LLC, Avis Rent A
Car System, LLC, Avis Budget Car Rental LLC, Avis Budget Group,
Inc., and Bank of America, N.A. in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division. The
complaint, which is substantially similar to the class action
complaint described in the immediately preceding paragraph,
asserts various causes of action on behalf of putative nationwide
classes in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its
membership programs, including claims under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and state common law. The case was recently filed, and there
has been no substantive activity in the case.

On August 4, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against AGLLC,
Trilegiant Corporation, Apollo Global Management, LLC, and Chase
Bank USA, N.A., in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio. The complaint, which is substantially
similar to the class action complaint described in the preceding
two paragraphs, asserts various causes of action on behalf of
putative nationwide classes in connection with the sale by
Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act, and state common law. The case was recently
filed, and there has been no substantive activity in the case.

On August 8, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against AGLLC,
Trilegiant Corporation, Apollo Global Management, LLC, and
American Express Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The complaint, which is
substantially similar to the class action complaint described in
the preceding three paragraphs, asserts various causes of action
on behalf of putative nationwide classes in connection with the
sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims
under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act, and state common law. The case was
recently filed, and there has been no substantive activity in the
case.

On October 6, 2011, the plaintiffs in the five preceding class
action cases filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking
coordinated pretrial proceedings of the six preceding class action
cases. Plaintiffs in those actions argue that the factual
allegations in the cases raise common issues that make pretrial
transfer appropriate; they seek transfer and consolidation of the
cases to the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut. The responses to that motion are due on October 28,
2011, and the JPML will conduct a hearing on that motion on
December 1, 2011.

On October 25, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
AGLLC, Trilegiant, Apollo Global Management, LLC,
IAC/InterActiveCorp. Shoebuy.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A. in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint, which is substantially similar to the
class action complaints filed in July 2011 and August 2011,
asserts various causes of action on behalf of putative nationwide
classes in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its
membership programs including claims under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and state common law. The case was recently filed, and there
has been no substantive activity in the case. The Company expects
that the plaintiffs will file a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section
1407 with the JPML to consolidate this case with the six class
actions in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.


AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Continues to Defend Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s October 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On January 14, 2011, Affinion Group, Inc., and Affinion Group
Holdings, Inc., entered into, and consummated, an Agreement and
Plan of Merger that resulted in the acquisition of Webloyalty
Holdings, Inc. ("Webloyalty") by the Company.

On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty and one of its clients in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California alleging, among
other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, fraud,
civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false advertising and
California Consumer Business Practice violations. This lawsuit
relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after
October 1, 2008. On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit. On April 12,
2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion and dismissed all
claims against the defendants. On May 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a
notice appealing the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Pursuant to the Time Schedule Order
issued by the court of appeals, as amended, plaintiff's opening
brief was filed on October 17, 2011 and defendant's responding
brief is due on November 17, 2011. Plaintiff's reply brief, if
any, is due on December 1, 2011.

On August 27, 2010, another substantially similar class action
lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients
and one of the credit card associations in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among
other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act,
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil
theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act violations. This lawsuit relates to
Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1,
2008. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss
this lawsuit, which had since been amended in its entirety. The
court has not yet scheduled a hearing or ruled on Webloyalty's
motion.

On February 18, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against
Webloyalty and one of its clients in the District Court for the
Western District of Virginia. The complaint asserted various
causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class,
including unfair and deceptive acts and practices, unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy, money had and received, larceny,
obtaining money by false pretense, trover, conversion, detinue,
trespass, fraud, misrepresentation and computer fraud and
violations under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in
connection with the sale by Webloyalty of its membership programs.
The complaint was served on the Company on March 3, 2011.
Following the April 12, 2011 decision dismissing the substantially
similar class action lawsuit commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, plaintiff
in the Virginia class action lawsuit agreed to settle her case on
an individual basis for a nominal amount. The parties filed a
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice with the court on
April 21, 2011.


AMEDISYS INC: Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Proceedings Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss amended complaints filed in putative securities
class actions, shareholder derivative actions, and class actions
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which have been
consolidated for pre-trial purposes remain pending in Louisiana,
according to Amedisys, Inc.'s November 1, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

              Securities Class Action Lawsuits

On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana against the Company and certain of its current and
former senior executives.  Additional putative securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana on July 14, July 16, and July 28,
2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the
putative securities class action lawsuits and certain Federal
Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes. In the same order, the
Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-
lead plaintiffs for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the
Court also consolidated an ERISA class action lawsuit with the
putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative Actions
for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint, which supersedes the earlier-
filed securities class action complaints. The Securities Complaint
alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's business, financial condition, operations and prospects,
particularly relating to the Company's policies and practices
regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on the
Company's business, financial condition, operations and prospects.
The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may
be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and
September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages. All
defendants have moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint.

                  Shareholder Derivative Actions

On July 2, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, purporting to assert claims on
behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former
officers and directors. Three similar derivative suits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana on July 15, July 21, and August 2, 2010. The Company is
named as a nominal defendant in all of those actions. On
October 22, 2010, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana issued an order consolidating the Federal
Derivative Actions with the putative securities class action
lawsuits and for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative
Actions filed a consolidated, amended complaint, which supersedes
the earlier-filed derivative complaints. The Derivative Complaint
alleges that certain of the Company's current and former officers
and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by
making allegedly false statements, by allegedly failing to
establish sufficient internal controls over certain of the
Company's home health and Medicare billing practices, by engaging
in alleged insider trading, and by committing unspecified acts of
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. All defendants in
the Federal Derivative Actions, including the Company as a nominal
defendant, have moved to dismiss the Derivative Complaint.

On July 23, 2010, a derivative suit was filed in the Nineteenth
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana. That action also purports to assert claims on behalf of
the Company against certain of its current and former officers and
directors. On December 8, 2010, the Court entered an order staying
the action in deference to the earlier-filed derivative actions
pending in federal court.

                   ERISA Class Actions

On September 27, 2010 and October 22, 2010, separate putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company,
certain of its current and former senior executives and members of
its 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee. The lawsuits allege
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act since
January 1, 2006 and July 1, 2007. The plaintiffs brought the
complaints on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated participants in the Company's 401(k) plan. The plaintiffs
assert that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
401(k) Plan's participants by causing the 401(k) plan to offer and
hold the Company's common stock during the respective class
periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky and imprudent
retirement investment because of the Company's alleged improper
business practices. The complaints seek a determination that the
actions may be maintained as a class action, an award of
unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief. On
December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative ERISA class
actions with the putative securities class actions and derivative
actions for pre-trial purposes. In addition, on December 10, 2010,
the Court appointed interim lead counsel and interim liaison
counsel in the ERISA class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell
filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint, which
supersedes the earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints. The
ERISA Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be
maintained as a class action on behalf of themselves and a class
of similarly situated participants in the Company's 401(k) plan
from January 1, 2008 through present. All of the defendants have
moved to dismiss the ERISA Complaint.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Fact Discovery in NY Suit to Close Feb. 24, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery in a remaining lawsuit captioned 380544 Canada,
Inc., et al. v. Aspen Technology, Inc. is scheduled to close on
February 24, 2012, according to the Company's November 1, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In March 2006, the Company settled class action litigation,
including related derivative claims, arising out of its originally
filed consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2000 through
2004, the accounting for which it restated in March 2005. Certain
members of the class (representing 1,457,969 shares of common
stock (or less than 1% of the shares putatively purchased during
the class action period)) opted out of the settlement and had the
right to bring their own state or federal law claims against the
Company, referred to as "opt-out" claims. Opt-out claims were
filed on behalf of the holders of approximately 1.1 million of
such shares. All but one of these actions were settled and/or
dismissed.

380544 Canada, Inc., et al. v. Aspen Technology, Inc., was filed
on February 15, 2007, in the federal district court for the
Southern District of New York and docketed as Civ. A. No. 1:07-cv-
01204-JFK in that court. The claims in this action include claims
against the Company and one or more of its former officers
alleging securities and common law fraud, breach of contract,
deceptive practices and/or rescissory damages liability, based on
the restated results of one or more fiscal periods included in the
Company's restated consolidated financial statements referenced in
the class action. This action was brought by persons who purchased
566,665 shares of the Company's common stock in a private
placement. Certain motions to dismiss filed by other defendants
were resolved on May 5, 2009. On July 26, 2010, the plaintiff
moved for leave to file a second amended complaint, and the motion
was denied on September 14, 2011.  Fact discovery is scheduled to
close on February 24, 2012.  The claims in the 380544 Canada
action are for damages totaling at least $4.0 million, not
including claims for attorneys' fees. The Company plans to defend
the 380544 Canada action vigorously.

Aspen Technology, Inc. is a global provider of mission-critical
process optimization software solutions, which are designed to
manage and optimize plant and process design, operational
performance, and supply chain planning.


BATTAT INC: Recalls 99,300 Toulouse-LapTrec Magnetic Sketchboards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Battat Inc., of Plattsburgh, New York,
and manufacturer, Rainbow Force Plastic Products, of China,
announced a voluntary recall of about 95,000 units of Toulouse-
LapTrec magnetic sketchboards in the United States of America and
4,300 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The magnetic tip of the drawing pen can dislodge from the pen,
posing a choking hazard to children.

Battat has received 19 reports of the magnetic tip separating from
the pen.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Toulouse-LapTrec magnetic sketchboard,
which has a white plastic writing surface bordered by either a red
or brown plastic frame, and has a bean bag type backing.  The
sketch board has four animal shapes across the top -- a rabbit,
dog, cat and duck.  The multicolored magnetic pen is affixed to
the front of the sketchpad.  The model number BX1026 (red frame)
or BX1027 (brown frame) can be found on a paper wrapper that comes
with the product at the time it was purchased.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12031.html


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target and Barnes & Noble stores nationwide and by various online
retailers from March 2010 to March 2011 for about $16.

Consumers should immediately take recalled sketchboards away from
children and contact Battat to receive a free replacement
sketchboard.  For additional information, contact Battat toll-free
at (866) 665-5524 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Monday through Friday, or visit Battat's Web site at
http://www.battatco.com/


BEST BUY: Sued for Selling Fake Car Speakers
--------------------------------------------
Meredith Yeomans, writing for azfamily.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against electronics retailer, Best
Buy, accusing the company of selling fake car speakers.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in downtown Phoenix.

Attorneys say car speakers that Best Buy sold under its house
brand name, Insignia, lead consumers to believe they were getting
three- and four-way speakers.

The description three-way and four-way refers to how many drivers
are used to produce the sound.  A three-way speaker has a woofer
(low ranger), a tweeter (high ranger) and a mid-ranger driver.  A
four-way speaker has all three of those components plus a super
tweeter.

Attorney Robert Carey says some Insignia speakers didn't have all
of the advertised elements, showing that when you actually open
them up, one of the speakers is just a fake plastic cover.

Mr. Carey, who filed the lawsuit, showed us one of the models that
retails for around $75.

He estimates hundreds of thousands of consumers bought the
speakers over the past few years, and argues Best Buy should have
known the speakers weren't what they were advertised to be.

"Most people probably have no idea this is going on.  Most Best
Buy stores don't know it's going on," he said.  "But, the people
in Best Buy that are supposed to check and test the equipment,
they know, and the people that make it know."

3 On Your Side reached out to Best Buy for comment.

A company representative tells us Best Buy doesn't comment on
pending litigation.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Tariffs
-----------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Nov. 2 disclosed that a purported class
action lawsuit against the Company was filed in the District Court
of Jerusalem, by plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the
Company, in connection with the allegation that the Company raised
tariffs for business customers, unlawfully and in violation of its
agreements with them.

The total amount claimed from the Company, if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
at least hundreds of millions of NIS.

At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.

                       About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.366 million
subscribers (as at June 30, 2011) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and
additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office
etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure.


DUTAILIER GROUP: Recalls 440 Drop-Side Cribs Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dutailier Group Inc., of Quebec, Canada, announced a voluntary
recall of about 440 drop-side cribs.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The slats on the drop side can detach from the top and bottom
rails creating a space between the slats.  An infant or toddler's
body can become entrapped in the space, which can lead to
strangulation and/or suffocation.  A child can also fall out of
the crib.

The firm is aware of 16 reports in which the slats on the drop
side became detached from the top or bottom of the drop side rails
of a crib.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves full-size, drop-side wooden cribs with part
numbers that begin with E1230C2, E3500C2, E3540C2, E5100C2,
E5140C2, E5530C2, E9000C2 and E9100C2.  The Dutailier logo and the
part number can be found on labels on the inside of the end
panels.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12032.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
children's products stores and other baby specialty stores from
January 2009 through February 2010 for between $425 and $775.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact Dutailier Group to receive a free repair kit which
consists of a new fixed side to replace the drop-side of the crib.
In the meantime, parents are urged to find an alternate, safe
sleeping environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard
or toddler bed depending on the child's age.  For additional
information, contact the Dutailier Group toll-free at (800) 363-
9817 on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time, and on Fridays from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Time.


GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 13,000 Hunting Knife Sets
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gerber(R) Legendary Blades, of Portland, Oregon, announced a
voluntary recall of about 13,000 Winchester(R) Hunting Knife Sets.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The latching mechanism for the knife's interchangeable blades can
unexpectedly fail and release the blade.  This poses a laceration
hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Winchester Hunting Knife Sets with model
number 31-000801.  The model number is printed on the back, lower
right corner of the packaging.  The knife sets have a single
handle with a lock release button and four interchangeable blades.
"Winchester(R)" is printed in red on the knife set's handle and is
etched onto the side of each of the four blades.  Picture of the
recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12030.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
sporting goods stores nationwide from July 2011 through September
2011 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled knife sets
and contact the firm for a free replacement product of equal or
higher value.  For additional information, contact Gerber
Legendary Blades toll-free at (877) 314-9130 between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.gerbergear.com/


GREAT ATLANTIC: "LaMarca" Suit Remains Stayed Due to Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 24, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Great Atlantic
& Pacific Tea Company, Inc., d/b/a A&P, The Food Emporium, and
Waldbaum's alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the
New York Labor Law.  Three named plaintiffs, Benedetto LaMarca,
Dolores Guiddy, and Stephen Tedesco, alleged on behalf of a class
that the Company failed to pay overtime wages to full-time hourly
employees who were either required or permitted to work more than
40 hours per week. This matter has been stayed by the Company's
Bankruptcy Filing and is a claim that is subject to compromise.

No updates were reported in The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Company, Inc.'s October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 10, 2011.


IKEA NORTH: Recalls 2,200 Wardrobe Mirror Doors
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with IKEA North America Service, of Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,700 units of
PAX AURLAND wardrobe mirror doors in the United States of America
and 500 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The mirror glass can detach unexpectedly from the wardrobe door,
fall and shatter, posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

IKEA has received reports of 14 incidents, including one minor
injury in Europe.  No incidents have been reported in the U.S. or
Canada.

This recall involves a wardrobe door with full-length glass mirror
with model number 101-604-51, supplier number 12650 and production
weeks 1039 through 1048 (YYWW).  The product name "PAX AURLAND"
and "IKEA" and production week are printed on the rear of the
mirror door on the lower edge.  The mirror door is made of foil-
coated particleboard and the mirror of glass.  The mirror is
secured with metal fastenings at top and bottom.  The mirror door
measures about 191/2 inches wide, 93 inches high and 7/8 inches
thick.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12026.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Sweden and sold
exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide from October 2010 through
September 2011 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately contact their local IKEA store for
instructions on returning the mirror wardrobe door for a free
replacement door.  For additional information, contact IKEA toll-
free at (888) 966-4532 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.ikea-usa.com/


K-V PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of K-V
Pharmaceutical Company, has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased K-V securities between February 14, 2011, and April 4,
2011, inclusive.

K-V is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
acquisition, development, manufacture and marketing of branded and
generic/non-branded prescription pharmaceutical products in the
United States, primarily focusing on women's healthcare.  The
Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, K-V and certain
of the Company's executive officers issued false and/or misleading
statements concerning the Company's business and financial
prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had
granted K-V the exclusive distribution rights over "Makena," a
drug used to prevent miscarriages, and that the FDA would enforce
those rights by preventing K-V's competitors from distributing
generic formulations of the drug.  The Complaint further alleges
that defendants failed to disclosed that the drug's $1,500 price
actually would reduce the availability of Makena to low-income and
other at-risk groups.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased K-V securities between February 14,
2011, and April 4, 2011, you have until December 19, 2011, to move
for lead plaintiff status.  To be a member of the class you need
not take action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215)638-4847
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


KIDDIELAND TOYS: Recalls 12,000 Disney-branded Fairies Trikes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kiddieland Toys Limited, of Scituate, Massachusetts, today
announced a voluntary recall of about 12,000 Disney Fairies
Plastic Racing Trikes.  About 9,000 Disney Princess Trikes were
recalled [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11205.html]
in April 2011.  New model Princess Trikes do not have figurines
and are not included in the recall.  Disney licensed their brand
name to Kiddieland.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The plastic fairy figures protrude from the top of the handle bar
posing a laceration hazard if a child falls on them.

CPSC and Kiddieland have received one report of a 3-year-old girl
from Ohio who suffered a facial laceration near her right eye.

This recall involves the Disney-branded Fairies Plastic Racing
Trike.  The trike is green and purple with a white seat and yellow
wheels.  On top of the handlebar, there is a Tinkerbell figure and
three other rotating fairy figures.  "Disney Fairies" is printed
on the label in front of the trike just below the handlebar.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12029.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide from July 2009 through
December 2009 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately take the trikes away from children
and contact Kiddieland for a free replacement handlebar with an
enclosed rotating display.  For additional information, contact
Kiddieland at (800) 430-5307 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.kiddieland.com.hk/


KOSS CORP: Reaches Settlement in Principle in Wisconsin Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Koss Corporation has reached a settlement in principle in the case
captioned David A. Puskala v. Koss Corporation, et al., United
States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No.
2:2010cv00041, according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On January 15, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin against the Company, Michael Koss and Sujata
Sachdeva. The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the unauthorized
transactions and requests an award of compensatory damages in an
amount to be proven at trial.  On October 24, 2011, the Company
announced that settlement in principle has been reached subject to
Court approval involving the claims that were brought against the
Company and Michael Koss.  This settlement involves a total
payment of $1 million to the shareholders included within the
class.  This amount will be funded by the Company's insurance
company, with any fee awarded to plaintiffs' counsel to be paid
out of the $1 million settlement.


PEET'S COFFEE: Net Income Includes $3.2MM Anticipated Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc.'s November 1, 2011 earnings release for
the quarter ended October 2, 2011, disclosed that its net income
for the quarter includes the anticipated settlement and legal
costs of a class action lawsuit ($2.2 million after tax) filed in
February 2010.

The Company further related that litigation related expenses of
$3.2 million include all costs incurred related to the pending
settlement of a class action lawsuit that was filed in February
2010 against the company.

On February 23, 2010, a complaint was filed in Orange County
Superior Court by two former employees, on behalf of themselves
and all other non-exempt employees similarly situated in the state
of California naming the Company as a defendant. One of the
plaintiffs was removed by an amended complaint and the remaining
plaintiff alleges claims for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest
period premiums, unpaid business expenses, unpaid minimum wages,
untimely wages paid at time of termination, untimely payment of
wages, failure to pay vacation wages, violation of California
Business & Professions Code section 17200 and non-compliant wage
statements and seeks injunctive relief, restitution, monetary
damages, penalties under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act, costs and attorneys' fees, penalties, and
prejudgment interest.  At this time, it is not feasible to predict
the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this
proceeding.  The Company has previously settled two employment
related lawsuits certified as a class: (1) a $2.5 million
settlement in 2010 for a complaint filed by three former employees
on behalf of themselves and all other California store managers
alleging they were not paid overtime wages, were not provided meal
or rest periods, were not provided accurate wage statements and
were not reimbursed for business expenses, and (2) a $2.1 million
final settlement payment in 2004 of another class action lawsuit.

Founded in Berkeley, California in 1966, Peet's Coffee & Tea,
Inc., is a specialty coffee roaster and marketer of fresh, high-
quality whole bean coffee and tea sold through multiple channels
of distribution for home and away-from-home enjoyment.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Unit Paid Judgment in "Scott" Suit in August
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
paid the $139 million judgment allocated to it and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., in the lawsuit captioned Scott v.
American Tobacco Co., in August, according to the Company's
October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

On November 5, 1998, in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., a case
filed in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trial
court certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of
Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996, in
an action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including  R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., seeking to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. In July 2003, the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs' claim for
medical monitoring and found that cigarettes were not defectively
designed. However, the jury also made certain findings against the
defendants on claims relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to
minors and smoking cessation. Notwithstanding these findings, this
portion of the trial did not determine liability as to any class
member or class representative. What primarily remained in the
case was a class-wide claim that the defendants pay for a program
to help people stop smoking.

In May 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591
million on the class's claim for a smoking cessation program. In
September 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond, pursuant
to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million
collectively for MSA signatories, and noticed their appeal. RJR
Tobacco posted $25 million (the portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W)
towards the bond. In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeals
upheld the class certification and found the defendants
responsible for funding smoking cessation for eligible class
members. The appellate court also ruled, however, that the
defendants were not liable for any post-1988 claims, rejected the
award of prejudgment interest, struck eight of the 12 components
of the smoking cessation program and remanded the case for further
proceedings. In particular, the appellate court ruled that no
class member, who began smoking after September 1, 1988, could
receive any relief, and that only those smokers, whose claims
accrued on or before September 1, 1988, would be eligible for the
smoking cessation program. The plaintiffs have expressly
represented to the trial court that none of their claims accrued
before 1988 and that the class claims did not accrue until around
1996, when the case was filed. The defendants' application for
writ of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied in
January 2008. The defendants' petition for writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court was denied in June 2008. In July 2008, the
trial court entered an amended judgment in the case, finding that
the defendants are jointly and severally liable for funding the
cost of a court-supervised smoking cessation program and ordered
the defendants to deposit approximately $263 million together with
interest from June 30, 2004, into a trust for the funding of the
program. The court also stated that it would favorably consider a
motion to return to defendants a portion of unused funds at the
close of each program year in the event the monies allocated for
the preceding program year were not fully expended because of a
reduction in class size or underutilization by the remaining
plaintiffs.

In December 2008, the trial court judge signed an order granting
the defendants an appeal from the amended judgment. In April 2010,
the court of appeals amended but largely affirmed the trial
court's July 2008 judgment and ordered the defendants to deposit
with the court $242 million with judicial interest from July 21,
2008, until paid. The defendants' motion for rehearing was denied.
In September 2010, the defendants' application for writ of
certiorari or review and their emergency motion to stay execution
of judgment with the Louisiana Supreme Court were denied. In
September 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendant's
motion to stay the judgment pending applicants' timely filing, and
the Court's disposition, of a petition for writ of certiorari. The
defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court in December 2010. The court denied the petition on
June 27, 2011. RJR Tobacco accrued $139 million, the portions of
the judgment allocated to RJR Tobacco and B&W, in the second
quarter of 2011. RJR Tobacco paid the judgment in August 2011.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Sept. 14 Trial Set for "Brown" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled for September 14, 2012, in Brown v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc., where Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiary R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is a defendant, according to the
Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case
filed in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County,
California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,
1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.
The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., seeking to recover restitution, disgorgement of
profits and other equitable relief under California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. and Section 17500 et seq.
Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition. The court,
however, refused to certify the class under the California Legal
Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law claims. In March
2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to decertify the
class, and in September 2006, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the order decertifying the class. In November 2006, the
plaintiffs' petition for review with the California Supreme Court
was granted, and in May 2009, the court reversed the decision of
the trial court, and the California Court of Appeal that
decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings. In March 2010, the trial court found that the
plaintiffs' "lights" claims were not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and denied the defendants'
second motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed a tenth
amended complaint in September 2010. RJR Tobacco and B&W filed
their answers to the complaint, and discovery is underway.
Subsequently, on February 24, 2011, the court found that the named
class representatives were not adequate, were not typical, and
lacked standing. The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was
denied. The court tentatively granted the plaintiffs' motion to
amend the complaint by adding new class representatives and denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an
eleventh amended complaint adding new class representatives in
July 2011. Trial is scheduled for September 14, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in Appeal in "Sateriale" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing is underway in the appeal from the final judgment entered
in a class action lawsuit against Reynolds American Inc.'s
subsidiary R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, according to the
Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that
in response to the defendants' action to discontinue redemption of
Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the plaintiffs,
attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise and that
the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to exchange
for Camel Cash. The plaintiffs allege unfair business practices,
deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and
expenses. In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint in February 2010. The class definition changed to a
class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and tried
unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from October 1,
2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel Cash
program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007.
The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a proposed
California subclass, consisting of all California residents
meeting the same criteria. In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction over
subject matter and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim
was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint. In July 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint was granted with leave to amend. The
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed
a motion to dismiss it in September 2010. In December 2010, the
court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Final judgment was entered by the court and the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal in January 2011. Briefing is underway.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Lights" Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc., its subsidiary R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., continue to defend
themselves from class action cases pending in Illinois (3),
Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1),
according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.

The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs
allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims
that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or
were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The
cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection
and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages
to the State of Illinois. Based on Illinois law, the bond required
to stay execution of the judgment was set initially at $12
billion. Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the
$12 billion bond requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the
case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the
case. On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the defendant's
motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment. The case was
dismissed with prejudice the same day. In December 2008, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment, stating that
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc.
rejected the basis for the reversal. The trial court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition for relief
from judgment in February 2009. In March 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth
Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the February 2009
order and remand to the circuit court. On February 24, 2011, the
appellate court entered an order, concluding that the two-year
time limit for filing a petition for relief from a final judgment
began to run when the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs'
lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The appellate court therefore found
that the petition was timely, reversed the order of the trial
court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On May 5,
2011, Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the
Illinois Supreme Court. On September 28, 2011, the Illinois
Supreme Court denied Philip Morris' petition for leave to appeal
and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified
a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion
to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the Price v.
Philip Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied in July 2003. In
October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals denied
RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request. In November
2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for
a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in Price. On
October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the court's denial of its
emergency stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to
the circuit court. There is currently no activity in the case.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed
in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a
judge certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case. The plaintiffs appealed
this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005.
There is currently no activity in the case.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR
Tobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003.
In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. There is currently
no activity in the case.

In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand,
which was granted in March 2006. In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. There is currently
no activity in the case.

In Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in April 2003,
and pending in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a judge
dismissed the case in May 2005, ruling the "lights" claims are
preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
In July 2005, the plaintiffs appealed to the Minnesota Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Judicial District. During the pendency of
the appeal, RJR Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota. In February 2007, the Eighth
Circuit remanded the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which
in December 2007, reversed the judgment and remanded the case to
the District Court. In January 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court
issued an order vacating the February 2008 order that granted RJR
Tobacco's petition for review. In July 2009, the plaintiffs in
this case and in Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed a
motion to consolidate for discovery and trial. In October 2009,
the court companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling on the
motion to consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as
discovery progresses. In February 2010, a stipulation and order
was entered to stay proceedings in this case, and in Thompson
until completion of all appellate review in Curtis v. Altria
Group, Inc. There is currently no activity in the case.

In Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in
February 2005 in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, RJR
Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota. In October 2007, the U.S. District Court
remanded the case to state district court. In May 2009, the court
entered an agreed scheduling order that bifurcates merits and
class certification discovery. The parties are engaged in class
certification discovery. In July 2009, the plaintiffs in this case
and in Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. filed a motion to
consolidate for discovery and trial. In October 2009, the court
companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling on the motion to
consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as discovery
progresses. In February 2010, a stipulation and order was entered
to stay proceedings in this case, and in Dahl until completion of
all appellate review in Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. There is
currently no activity in the case.

In Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., a case filed in June 1998, and
pending in Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, the plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification in December 2001, in an
action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and B&W. The case was brought on behalf of
persons who have allegedly been injured by (1) the defendants'
purported conspiracy pursuant to which defendants concealed
material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine, (2) the
defendants' alleged acts of targeting their advertising and
marketing to minors, and (3) the defendants' claimed breach of the
public right to defendants' compliance with the laws prohibiting
the distribution of cigarettes to minors. The plaintiffs requested
that the defendants be required to disgorge all profits unjustly
received through their sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs and the
class, which in no event will be greater than $75,000 per each
class member, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and costs.
In March 2006, the court dismissed count V, public nuisance, and
count VI, unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in March 2009, to add a claim of unjust enrichment and,
to include in the class, individuals who smoked "light"
cigarettes. RJR Tobacco and B&W answered the amended complaint in
March 2009. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed an additional
motion for class certification. In September 2009, the court
granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the
pleadings concerning the "lights" claims as to all defendants
other than Philip Morris. In February 2010, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification of all three putative
classes. However, the court ruled that the plaintiffs may
reinstate the class dealing with the conspiracy to conceal the
addictive nature of nicotine if they identify a new class
representative. In April 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to file a fourth amended complaint and withdraw the motion
to reinstate count I by identifying a new plaintiff. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fourth
amended complaint, which was granted in June 2010. The court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, and in August 2010,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In August 2011, the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment. The plaintiffs filed
a petition for rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing en banc.

In VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in August
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
against RJR Tobacco and RAI, the plaintiffs brought the case on
behalf of all New Mexico residents who from July 1, 2004, to the
date of judgment, purchased, not for resale, the defendants'
cigarettes labeled as "lights" or "ultra-lights." The plaintiffs
allege fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, violations of the New Mexico Unfair
Practices Act, unjust enrichment, negligence and gross negligence.
The plaintiffs seek a variety of damages, including actual,
compensatory and consequential damages to the plaintiff and the
class but not damages for personal injury or health-care claims.
Discovery is underway. On October 21, 2011, a stipulation of
dismissal was filed by both parties.

In Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in October
2009 in the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona against RJR
Tobacco, RAI and other defendants, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all persons residing in Arizona who purchased, not
for resale, defendants' cigarettes labeled as "light" or "ultra-
light" from the date of the defendants' first sales of such
cigarettes in Arizona to the date of judgment. The plaintiffs
allege consumer fraud, concealment, non-disclosure, negligent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek a
variety of damages, including compensatory, restitutionary and
punitive damages. In November 2009, the defendants removed the
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, and
RJR Tobacco and RAI filed their answers to the complaint.
Discovery is underway. The case was referred to mediation in May
2011 to determine whether the case might be suitable for
mediation. A decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Remains Stayed in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an ETS class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on
behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves
cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from
cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who
allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The
plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages. In October 2004, the trial court stayed this
case pending the outcome of the appeal in Scott v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc.

No updates were reported in the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking
to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both
compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on behalf
of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from
their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.
The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In December 2000, three
defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of
North American and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy
petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to
Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically
stayed with respect to all defendants.

No updates were reported in the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Jones" Suit in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December
1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri in February 1999. The action was brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds
American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by tobacco product users
and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri
consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants'
tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine.
The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the
Circuit Court in February 1999. There has been limited activity in
this case.

No updates were reported in the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend 6 Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
continues to defend itself against six class action lawsuits in
Canada, according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

These six putative Canadian class actions were filed against
various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in courts in the provinces of
Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and
Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively
pursuing only the action pending in Saskatchewan at this time:

   * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs
brought the case on behalf of all individuals who were alive on
July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer,
from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or
distributed by the defendants.

   * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs
brought the case on behalf of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants.

   * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all individuals, including their estates, and their
dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes
manufactured by the defendants.

   * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all individuals, including their estates, dependents
and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed,
manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants for the
period of January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period as
set by the court.

   * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all individuals, including their estates, who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently
suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
marketed, or distributed by the defendants.

   * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all individuals, including their estates, who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently
suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
distributed by the defendants.

In each of these six cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; the right to waive the torts and claim
disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the defendants
received from the sale of tobacco products to putative class
members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act and
other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems just.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these six actions to Japan Tobacco Inc. Subject to a
reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco
and its current or former affiliates in these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. are still awaiting a ruling
on their motion for summary judgment filed in a class action
lawsuit pending in Kansas, according to the Company's October 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, in federal
and state courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers combined
and conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of
antitrust statutes and various state unfair business practices
statutes. In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to
certify the lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons
who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more
of the defendants. As of September 30, 2011, all of the federal
and state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been
dismissed, except for one state court case pending in Kansas.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or
maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery. In November 2010, RJR
Tobacco and B&W filed a motion for summary judgment. A decision is
pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Tatum" Suit in N. Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit alleging
ERISA violations pending in North Carolina, according to the
Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR
Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension
Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about
which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by
RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group
Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby
separating NGH's tobacco business and food business. As part of
the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities
had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate
tobacco and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the
RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the
companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings
Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR
401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The
plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999
Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR
401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion
for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds
after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such
discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the
plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April
2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The
court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing
all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR
Pension Investment Committee. The remaining defendants, RJR and
RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and affirmative defenses in June
2007. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which
the court granted in September 2008. The district court ordered
mediation, but no resolution of the case was reached. In September
2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for
summary judgment, and in January 2009, the defendants filed a
motion to decertify the class. A second mediation occurred in June
2009, but again no resolution of the case was reached. The
district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the
motion to decertify the class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011. A decision is pending.


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class Counsel in Amunrud v. Sprint Communications, No. 1:10-cv-
00057-RFC-CSO, on Nov. 2 disclosed that preliminary approval of a
Proposed Settlement was granted by the United States District
Court for the District of Montana.  The lawsuit involves fiber-
optic cable and related telecommunications equipment that has been
installed in railroad Rights of Way.  Persons who own or owned
land next to or under railroad Rights of Way in Montana may be
eligible to receive benefits.

Sprint Communications, the Defendant, is a telecommunications
company.  Beginning in the mid-1980s, Sprint or its predecessors
buried fiber-optic cable and installed related telecommunications
equipment within railroad Rights of Way in Montana.  A railroad
Right of Way is a strip of land on which a railroad company builds
and operates a railroad.  The Defendant entered into agreements
with the railroads that own and occupy the Rights of Way, and
under those agreements paid the railroads for the rights to
install the fiber-optic cable and related telecommunications
equipment within the Rights of Way.

Plaintiffs allege that, before installing the fiber-optic cable
and related telecommunications equipment, the Defendant also was
required to obtain consent from those landowners who owned the
land under the Rights of Way.  The Defendant contends that the
railroads had the right to allow them to use the Rights of Way
without the need for further permission from the adjoining
landowners and deny any wrongdoing.

Class Members include current or previous owners of land next to
or under a railroad Right of Way, at any time since the cable was
installed, in the following counties: Broadwater, Custer, Dawson,
Gallatin, Granite, Jefferson, Lake, Lewis & Clark, Missoula, Park,
Powell, Prairie, Rosebud, Sanders, Stillwater, Sweet Grass,
Treasure, Wibaux, or Yellowstone.  Class members can find out when
fiber-optic cable was installed in a particular Right of Way by
visiting http://www.MontanaFiberSettlement.comor calling 1-866-
680-1707. Class members will have an opportunity to claim cash
benefits if the Court approves the Proposed Settlement.

The Proposed Settlement will provide cash payments to qualifying
class members based on various factors that include:

   -- the length of the Right of Way where the cable is installed,

   -- the length of time they owned the property,

   -- how the railroad got its property rights, and

   -- how many people co-own the property.

The Proposed Settlement will also provide the Defendant with a
permanent Telecommunications Easement, which gives it the right to
use the railroad Rights of Way for its fiber-optic cable and
related telecommunications equipment, if it doesn't already have
that right.

For more information regarding the Class Action visit
http://www.MontanaFiberSettlement.comor call 1-866-680-1707.


STRYKER CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------
In January 2010 a purported class action lawsuit against Stryker
Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's common stock between January 25, 2007 and November 13,
2008, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. In May 2010 the lawsuit was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan Southern Division. The Company is defending itself
vigorously.

No updates were reported in the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


TEXTRON INC: Appeal From Shareholder Class Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a shareholder class action lawsuit
against Textron, Inc., is pending, according to the Company's
October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

On August 13, 2009, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court in Rhode Island
against Textron, its then Chairman and former Chief Executive
Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer. The suit, filed by
the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, alleged that
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
material misrepresentations or omissions related to Cessna and
Textron Financial Corporation (TFC). The complaint sought
unspecified compensatory damages. In December 2009, the Automotive
Industries Pension Trust Fund was appointed lead plaintiff in the
case. On February 8, 2010, an amended class action complaint was
filed with the Court. The amended complaint named as additional
defendants TFC and three of its present and former officers. On
April 6, 2010, the court entered a stipulation agreed to by the
parties in which plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed, without
prejudice, certain causes of action in the amended complaint. On
April 9, 2010, all defendants moved to dismiss the remaining
counts of the amended complaint, and on August 24, 2011, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss on behalf of all defendants without
leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of all defendants. On
September 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is
currently pending.


TEXTRON INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Textron, Inc., continues to defend itself against a consolidated
class action lawsuit alleging ERISA violations, according to the
Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On August 21, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court in Rhode Island by Dianne Leach,
an alleged participant in the Textron Savings Plan. Six additional
substantially similar class action lawsuits were subsequently
filed by other individuals. The complaints varyingly name Textron
and certain present and former employees, officers and directors
as defendants. These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated
the United States Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
by imprudently permitting participants in the Textron Savings Plan
to invest in Textron common stock. The complaints seek equitable
relief and unspecified compensatory damages. On February 2, 2010,
an amended class action complaint was filed consolidating the
seven previous lawsuits into a single complaint. On March 19,
2010, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint, and on September 6, 2011, the Court granted the motion
to dismiss in part and denied the motion in part. Specifically,
the Court ruled that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient
allegations to support any claim that defendants made material
misrepresentations that would be actionable under ERISA, but
permitted the remainder of the Amended Complaint to survive the
pleadings stage. On September 20, 2011, all defendants moved for
partial reconsideration of the Court's decision not to dismiss the
Amended Complaint. The motion for reconsideration is still
pending.


TOWN SPORTS: Continues to Defend "Cruz" Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary Town Sports
International, LLC, continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of labor laws, according to the
Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al
v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club ,
plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against TSI, LLC in
the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of
the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages
to certain trainers and assistant fitness managers. On or about
June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported
class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that
TSI, LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of
the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages
to all New York purported hourly employees. On September 17, 2010,
TSI, LLC made motions to dismiss the class action allegations of
both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to
certify the class actions. Oral argument on the motions occurred
on November 10, 2010. A decision is still pending. While it is not
possible to estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a
range of loss in the case of an unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at
this time, the Company intends to contest these cases vigorously.
Depending upon the ultimate outcome, these matters may have a
material adverse effect on TSI, LLC's and the Company's
consolidated results of operations, or cash flows.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Inverter Assembly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Toyota's 2006 and 2007 Toyota Highlander HV and Lexus RX400h
models have a bad inverter assembly that fails and cuts off
electric power to the hybrids as they're being driven.

A copy of the Complaint in Thalberg v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-09070 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/02/ToyotaCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Denis M. Delja, Esq.
          ARIAS, OZZELLO & GIGNAC, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 670-1600
          E-mail: marias@aogllp.com
                  dmdelja@aogllp.com


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Judge Allows Royalty Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that a
federal judge in California is allowing a big class action lawsuit
to go forward against Universal Music Group that alleges the
record label has underpaid royalties on digital downloads and
ringtones.  Spearheaded by Rob Zombie and the estate of
Rick James, the consolidated class action seeks damages that could
rise to the billions of dollars.

The lawsuit was filed in April and came on the heels of previous
litigation that opened the question of how labels should be
treating digital music distribution.

UMG and other labels believe that when consumers download song
recordings via the Internet or on a mobile phone, it constitutes a
"sale."  Many recording artists, on the other hand, note there's
little manufacturing cost involved and consider what's happening
to be a "license."

The difference between a "sale" and a "license," for accounting
purposes, is huge.  If the record labels are correct, they only
need to pay artists a royalty rate that's roughly between 10 and
20%.  If artists get their way, the revenue apportionment is much
closer to a 50/50 split.

A study by the Future of Music Coalition estimated that the
difference in interpretation just for music downloaded off of
iTunes alone could be $2.15 billion.  Considering all the other
digital outlets out there, and the fact that consumers
increasingly get music through digital channels, an adverse
judgment for record labels in the current class action could
threaten their continued viability in the marketplace.

Prior litigation suggests that artists may have an upper-hand in
this fight.

In September 2010, for instance, in a separate case that involved
early music from Eminem, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made a
ruling that deemed Eminem recordings transferred online to be a
license.  "It is well settled that where a copyright owner
transfers a copy of copyrighted material, retains title, limits
the uses to which the material may be put, and is compensated
periodically based on the transferee's exploitation of the
material, the transaction is a license," wrote circuit judge
Barry Silverman in the decision.

UMG spun the decision as being a singular case over unique
contract language that wouldn't impact its relationship with other
recording artists.

The class action by Zombie and James represents a follow-up of
sorts to determine what royalties are owed to recording artists,
music producers, and other royalty participants throughout the
nation.

In reaction to the lawsuit, UMG attempted to dismiss it, arguing
that the claims were dressed-up breach-of-contract claims and hurt
neither consumers nor competitors.  The record label said that
since the issues involved "sophisticated business finance issues,"
it could hardly be brought as a class action under the California
Business & Professions Code alleging that misconduct harmed the
general public.

The plaintiffs disagreed, saying the public was indeed harmed, and
pointed to the California Select Committee on the Entertainment
Industry, which cautioned the major record labels against engaging
in policies and practices that constitute "purposeful neglect" of
royalty participants.

On Nov. 1, Judge Susan Illston handed the plaintiffs an initial
win, finding that the complaint did allege a connection to the
protection of the public, and that further fact-finding would need
to ensue.  That might potentially happen before a jury.  According
to the decision:

"The Court finds that plaintiffs have alleged more than just a
breach of contract because the complaints allege that UMG engaged
in a broad scheme to underpay numerous royalty participants,
including formulating 'an opaque and artificial method for
accounting for and paying its royalty participants for income
derived from such licenses,' and engaging in a 'sustained public
relations effort designed to convince the public that it had
employed 'groundbreaking' and 'enlightened' accounting practices
that actually benefitted (rather than cheated) the Class."

Judge Illston also denied UMG's attempts to transfer the case.

In reaction, UMG has given us this statement: "The court has
simply stated that the motion, which addressed a small part of the
case, is more appropriately decided at the summary judgment stage
rather than at the motion to dismiss stage.  We believe that once
the court addresses the merits of this case, we will prevail."


U.S. BANK: Sued Over "Worthless" Flood Insurance Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------
On November 2, 2011, Plaintiff Matthew Lacroix filed a class
action lawsuit against U.S. Bank, N.A. and U.S. Bank Home Mortgage
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The lawsuit alleges that U.S. Bank unlawfully billed Mr. Lacroix's
mortgage escrow account for "force-placed" flood insurance
coverage in excess of his loan balance, even though the policy
that it purchased did not actually provide coverage in excess of
his loan balance.  According to Plaintiff's attorney, Kai Richter,
"This insurance was not only unnecessary -- it was worthless."

The Complaint alleges that U.S. Bank was not authorized to require
Mr. Lacroix to maintain flood insurance coverage in excess of his
loan balance because this amount of coverage is not required under
the National Flood Insurance Act and was not required under
Mr. Lacroix's mortgage.  Moreover, the lawsuit further alleges
that this excessive "force-placed" flood insurance coverage was
worthless because the policy that U.S. Bank purchased explicitly
stated: "THIS INSURANCE WILL NOT PROVIDE AN AMOUNT OF COVERAGE
GREATER THAN THE NET AMOUNT YOU OWE ON THE MORTGAGE."  According
to the Complaint, Lacroix had to increase his mortgage payment to
make up the resulting "shortage" in his escrow account, imposing a
significant hardship on him.

"In today's economic environment, many homeowners are struggling
to make their mortgage payments, and it is wrong for any bank to
add to their burden by demanding excessive amounts of flood
insurance coverage and by purchasing worthless insurance at their
expense," said Mr. Richter.  "It is particularly egregious that
U.S. Bank purchases this insurance out of borrowers' escrow
accounts, since these escrow funds are supposed to be held in
trust by U.S. Bank," continued Mr. Richter.

In his class action Complaint, Mr. Lacroix seeks relief on behalf
of himself and other borrowers across the country who have been
similarly affected by U.S. Bank's alleged conduct.  Based on this
alleged conduct, Lacroix's Complaint asserts claims against U.S.
Bank for breach of contract, breach of its duty of good faith and
fair dealing, breach of its fiduciary duty to borrowers in
connection with the handling of escrow accounts, and unjust
enrichment.

The case is entitled Lacroix v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al., No. 11-
cv-3236 (D. Minn.).  Plaintiff is represented by Kai Richter and
Michelle Drake from Nichols Kaster, PLLP. Nichols Kaster has
offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California,
and is currently pursuing similar cases against several other
major banks, including JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bank of America,
N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and RBS Citizens, N.A. (also known
as Citizens Bank).  Additional information is located at
http://www.nka.comor may be obtained by calling Nichols Kaster,
PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492.


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *