CAR_Public/131114.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 14, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 226

                             Headlines


AMERICAN HONDA: 21,000 ATVs Recalled Due to Defective Part
BARCLAYS BANK: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Forex Manipulation
BP PLC: Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Oil Spill Settlement
BREATHABLEBABY: Wearable Blanket Recalled Over Choking Hazard
CALPHALON: XL 9 Speed Blenders Recalled Over Defective Blade

CERTAINTEED CORP: Settles Class Actions Over Fiber Cement Siding
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Class Action Participants Get Settlement Checks
EXXONMOBIL: Oil Spill Class Action Hearing Scheduled for Jan. 2015
FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
HEALTHCO: Recalls Motion Activated Lights Over Electric Shock Risk

LAROSE INDUSTRIES: Cra-Z-Art Snoopy Sno-Cone Machines Recalled
MARATHON OIL: Dragged in Lac Megantic Train Explosion Class Action
MICROSOFT CORP: Lawson Lundell Discusses Class Action Ruling
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Balk at Bid to Prevent Class Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Class Suit Still Has No Activity

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Indirect Purchasers Antitrust Suits Dismissed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI's Bid for Indemnification Remains Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Class Suit Remains Stayed in W.Va.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports 2,574 Broin II Cases as of Sept. 30
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Seven Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Collora" Suit on Feb. 3
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Turner" Suit on Jan. 29
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Jones" Class Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Sateriale" Suit Set for Nov. 2014
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Two Antitrust Suits vs. Units Remain Pending

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Remains Stayed in Louisiana
SHOPPERS DRUG: Ontario Court Certifies Franchisees' Class Action
SINO-FOREST CORP: Nov. 18 Settlement Approval Order Hearing Set
SLAWSON EXPLORATION: Dragged in Lac Megantic Class Action
SOUTHERN TELECOM: A/C Adaptors Recalled Due to Fire Risk

TARGET CORP: Circo-Brand Chloe And Conner Sitting Stools Recalled
TREASURY WINE: Investors Launch Class Action Over Writedown
UNITED STATES: Federal Employees File Suit Over Gov't Shutdown
VICAL INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
VISA INC: Faces Class Action in California Over Zipcar Policy

YELP INC: May Owe $12.8BB to Volunteer Reviewers, Post Says


                             *********


AMERICAN HONDA: 21,000 ATVs Recalled Due to Defective Part
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports about recently recalled products:

DETAILS: Four-wheel drive 2012 and 2013 Honda FourTrax TRX500
Foreman ATV models FE and FM.  The ATVs are red, green or
camouflage and have "Honda" on both sides of the fuel tank and
"Foreman" on the front cowl below the handlebars and on the left
rear fender.  The model number is on the left front frame down
pipe above the driver's left-hand side front wheel.  They were
sold at Honda ATV dealers nationwide from May 2011 through
September 2013.

The following VIN ranges are included in the recall: 2012 TRX500FE
models with VIN 1HFTE387(asterisk)C4000006 thru
1HFTE387(asterisk)C4005765; 2012 TRX500FE Camo models with VIN
1HFTE385(asterisk)C4000002 through 1HFTE385(asterisk)C4001201;
2012 TRX500FM models with VIN 1HFTE380(asterisk)C4000004 through
1HFTE380(asterisk)C4007923; 2012 TRX500FM Camo models with VIN
1HFTE381(asterisk)C4000003 through 1HFTE381(asterisk)C4000902;
2013 TRX500FE models with VIN 1HFTE387(asterisk)D4100001 through
1HFTE387(asterisk)D4101860; 2013 TRX500FE Camo models with VIN
1HFTE385(asterisk)D4100001 through 1HFTE385(asterisk)D4100600;
2013 TRX500FM models with VIN 1HFTE380(asterisk)D4100001 through
1HFTE380(asterisk)D4102400; and 2013 TRX500FM Camo models with VIN
1HFTE381(asterisk)D4100001 through 1HFTE381(asterisk)D4100480.

WHY: The ATV's steering shaft can break unexpectedly and cause the
rider to lose steering control and crash.  This poses a risk of
injury or death.

INCIDENTS: 18 reports of the ATV's steering shaft breaking,
including two in which the riders were involved in a crash.  No
injuries have been reported.

HOW MANY: About 21,000.

FOR MORE: Call American Honda at 866-784-1870 or visit
http://powersports.honda.comand click on Support for product
recall information.


BARCLAYS BANK: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Forex Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Evan Weinberger and Brian Mahoney, writing for
Law360, report that Barclays Bank PLC, Citigroup Inc. and others
were slapped on Nov. 1 with a New York federal class action by
investors claiming the big banks' alleged manipulation of foreign
exchange rates diminished their returns on trades, pension plans
and savings accounts.

Plaintiff Haverhill Retirement System says the alleged conspiracy
-- also involving Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG,
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and UBS AG
-- affected the pricing of trillions of dollars' worth of
financial transactions in the U.S. alone.

The putative class includes thousands of people who traded foreign
currency directly with any of the defendants in the U.S. between
Aug. 1, 2005, and the present.

The suit came amid a large-scale investigation into the banks'
foreign exchange trading activities, including alleged attempts to
manipulate benchmark exchange rates in order to benefit their
trading positions, by regulatory and enforcement authorities in
various countries.

"Defendants' [forex] traders used chat rooms or instant messaging
to communicate with each other in furtherance of the conspiracy,
brazenly referring to themselves as members of 'The Bandits' Club'
and 'The Cartel,'" the Nov. 1 suit alleges.

In June, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority began looking into
allegations that traders at big banks were involved in a scheme to
rig foreign exchange benchmarks.  The agency launched a formal
investigation along with other regulators in October.

The Justice Department and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission have also been investigating the possible foreign
exchange market manipulation.

UBS and Deutsche Bank revealed in their most recent regulatory
filings that they were under investigation, as did Barclays in its
quarterly earnings update on Oct. 30

Citigroup said on Nov. 1 that it was cooperating with
investigators, and HSBC did the same on Nov. 4.

The forex market is the biggest in the world's financial system,
involving between $4.7 trillion and $5.3 trillion every business
day, according to the Nov. 1 suit.  In the U.S., forex trading
amounts to nearly $1.3 trillion each day, the class action says.

The named defendants have allegedly accounted for more than 60
percent of foreign currency trading this year. Deutsche Bank has a
15.2 percent share, followed by Citibank with 14.9 percent,
Barclays with 10.2 percent, UBS with 10.1 percent, JPMorgan with 6
percent and RBS with 5.6 percent, according to the complaint.

The suit claims the forex market is poorly regulated and that the
U.S. doesn't have any specific rules or agencies governing the
trading.

Due to the lax oversight, the defendants have allegedly been
trading ahead of client orders and rigging foreign exchange rates
by quickly pushing through trades immediately before or during the
time when benchmarks are set.

The suit says some of the defendants recently suspended or
dismissed traders in their forex divisions due to the alleged
conspiracy and resulting investigation.  The complaint notes that
its claims are based on press releases and news reports, but that
the global investigation will produce additional evidentiary
support.

JPMorgan was hit with a similar class suit over alleged forex
manipulation in August 2012.

Spokesperson for Credit Suisse and RBS declined comment on Nov. 4.

Spokespersons for Barclays, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan
Chase and UBS didn't immediately reply to requests for comment on
Nov. 4.

Attorneys for Haverhill didn't immediately reply to requests for
comment on Nov. 4.

Haverhill is represented by Joseph P. Guglielmo --
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Donald A. Broggi --
dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- Christopher M. Burke --
cburke@scott-scott.com -- Walter W. Noss -- wnoss@scott-scott.com
-- and Kristen M. Anderson -- kanderson@scott-scott.com -- of
Scott and Scott LLP; George A. Zelcs -- GZelcs@koreintillery.com
-- of Korein Tillery LLC and Daniel J. Mogin, Jodie M. Williams
and Phillip E. Stephan of the Mogin Law Firm PC.

Attorney information for the defendants wasn't immediately
available on Nov. 4.

The case is Haverhill Retirement System et al. v. Barclays Banks
PLC et al., case number 1:13-cv-07789, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.


BP PLC: Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Oil Spill Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court heard
dueling arguments on Nov. 4 on whether a judge should have
approved BP's multibillion-dollar settlement for compensating
victims of its 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Theodore Olson, a lawyer for BP, said the class-action deal it
reached last year with a team of private plaintiffs' attorneys
"became something else" after U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier
upheld a court-appointed claims administrator's interpretation of
terms governing payouts to businesses.

"I don't understand how you can now disagree with what's in
there," Judge Eugene Davis of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals told Mr. Olson.

"Black became white," Mr. Olson told Davis, one of three judges on
the panel that heard the case.  The judges didn't indicate how
soon they would rule.

The plaintiffs' lawyers who brokered the agreement on behalf of
tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents and businesses urged the
panel to uphold Judge Barbier's approval of the settlement.

BP, however, argues Judge Barbier's approval shouldn't stand
unless the company ultimately prevails in its ongoing dispute over
payments to businesses.

"BP supports the settlement as properly construed and implemented
to compensate claims for actual losses caused by the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill," Mr. Olson said.

The company claims Judge Barbier and claims administrator Patrick
Juneau interpreted the settlement in way that would force it to
pay for billions of dollars in inflated or bogus claims by
businesses.  Plaintiffs' lawyers counter that BP simply
undervalued the settlement and underestimated how many claimants
would be eligible for payments.

"They've all lost their livelihood or their business revenue as a
result of the economic calamity" caused by the spill, said
Samuel Issacharoff, who argued the case for the plaintiffs'
attorneys.

In October, a different 5th Circuit panel threw out Judge
Barbier's rulings on that dispute and ordered him to change the
calculation of some damages.  Mr. Olson, who served as a U.S.
solicitor general under President George W. Bush, told the Nov. 4
panel of judges that they may need to wait until that process is
finished before issuing their own ruling.

The dispute centers on money for businesses, not individuals.
Awards are based on a comparison of revenues and expenses before
and after the spill.  BP says a "policy decision" that Juneau
announced in January has allowed businesses to manipulate those
figures in a way that leads to errors in calculating their actual
lost profits.

The Nov. 4 panel also heard objections from several lawyers who
argue the deal shouldn't have been approved in its current form.


BREATHABLEBABY: Wearable Blanket Recalled Over Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports about recently recalled products:

DETAILS: BreathableBaby BreathableSack wearable blanket for
infants.  They are sleeveless, wearable blankets.  They come in
two sizes: small (10-18 pounds) and medium (16-24 pounds) and come
in three colors: kiwi Whoo, pink Hip, and blue Splash.  There is
one animal stitched on the left chest of each blanket of an owl,
hippo or elephant.  Only BreathableSacks from Lot No. 124 with a
manufacture date of 04/17/2012 are included in the recall.  A tag
sewn inside the recalled units where the infant's right foot would
be located states the "Date of Manufacture: 04/17/2012, Lot No.
124," along with the washing instructions on the back of the tag.
They were sold from June 2012 to August 2013.

WHY: The zipper pull tabs and sliders can detach posing a choking
hazard to infants.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 15,000.

FOR MORE: Call BreathableBaby at 877-827-4442 or visit
www.breathablebaby.com and click on Recall Information.


CALPHALON: XL 9 Speed Blenders Recalled Over Defective Blade
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports about recently recalled products:

DETAILS: Calphalon XL 9 speed blenders, model 1832449, also
identified as model ME600BL.  The model number is located on the
underside of the blender's base.  They were sold from September
2012 through September 2013.

WHY: A piece of the blender's mixing blade unit can break off
during use, posing an injury hazard.

INCIDENTS: Four reports of a piece of the blender's mixing blade
breaking off.  No injuries have been reported.

HOW MANY: About 22,000 in the U.S. and 400 in Canada.

FOR MORE: Call Calphalon at 800-809-7267 or visit
www.Calphalon.com and click on "XL 9 Speed Blender Recall
Information" for more information.


CERTAINTEED CORP: Settles Class Actions Over Fiber Cement Siding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Analytics Consulting, LLC, Claims Administrator, on Nov. 4
disclosed that CertainTeed Corporation and Counsel for the
Plaintiffs in In re: CertainTeed Fiber Cement Siding Litigation,
MDL Docket No. 2270 (E.D. Pa), on Nov. 4 disclosed that they have
entered into an agreement to settle various class actions relating
to fiber cement siding manufactured by CertainTeed Corporation and
installed on or before September 30, 2013.  Plaintiffs, who own
properties with the siding, allege that the siding was defective.
CertainTeed believes that its fiber cement siding has performed
well over many years, but has agreed to the settlement to avoid
the expense, inconvenience, and distraction of further protracted
litigation and to fully resolve this matter.

The fiber cement siding included in the settlement is CertainTeed
Weatherboards(TM) Fiber Cement Siding, Lap Siding, Vertical
Siding, Shapes, Soffit, Porch Ceiling, and 7/16" Trim installed
before September 30, 2013.  CertainTeed's vinyl siding and polymer
shake products are not involved in this litigation.

CertainTeed will pay $103.9 million to fund the settlement, which
includes attorneys' fees and costs.  The settlement agreement
provides a more substantial remedy than is available to property
owners under CertainTeed's limited warranty.  The availability of
the remedy under the settlement depends upon a number of factors
such as (1) the extent of the Qualifying Damage; (2) the
proportion of the wall with Qualifying Damage; (3) the size of the
wall; (4) the length of time the siding has been installed; and
(5) whether the Qualifying Damage was caused by a third party or
as a result of improper installation or storage.

The settlement agreement must be approved by a judge -- in this
case, by United States District Court Judge Thomas P. O'Neill --
after a hearing which we expect to take place on February 19, 2014
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

People who own or owned buildings with CertainTeed Fiber Cement
Siding and believe they may qualify for a remedy under this
settlement can obtain additional information about the settlement
by checking the website at:

     http://www.CertainTeedFiberCementSettlement.com

by calling 1 (855) 332-3413, or by writing to: CertainTeed Claims
Administrator, PO Box 2007, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2007.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Class Action Participants Get Settlement Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samit Sarkar at Polygon, citing NeoGAF users, reports that
participants in the class-action lawsuit alleging that Electronic
Arts created a monopoly for football video games are finally
starting to receive payouts from EA's settlement fund.

EA came to an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs in
Pecover v. Electronic Arts in July 2012, and agreed to pay $27
million into a fund that would be allocated to lawyers' fees and
the class-action claimants in the case.  The payouts were held up
by appeals this past summer, but a federal court in California
dismissed them, allowing the settlement checks to go out this
fall.

Those who filed a verifiable claim by May 15 of this year will
receive $20.37 per copy of a Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena
Football game they bought on GameCube, PlayStation 2, Windows PC
or Xbox, and $5.85 per game purchased on PlayStation 3, Wii or
Xbox 360.  That's three times as much as the original amounts,
since there were fewer claimants than expected.  The settlement
covers games in the three aforementioned franchises that were
released between Jan. 1, 2005, and June 21, 2012 -- for Madden,
that's Madden NFL 06 through Madden NFL 12.

The lawsuit in question, Pecover v. EA, was originally filed in
June 2008.  The plaintiffs charged that EA, by securing an
exclusive license for its Madden NFL football series in response
to Sega dropping the price of ESPN NFL 2K5 to $19.99, imposed a
monopoly on the market for football video games.

In its settlement, EA did not admit to any wrongdoing, and said it
"does not agree in all respects with Plaintiffs'
characterizations" of the facts at issue in the legal complaint.
Under the terms of the deal, EA agreed not to sign exclusive
licensing contracts with the Arena Football League or for the now-
defunct NCAA Football series.  The settlement did not affect EA's
Madden franchise, for which EA's exclusive licensing agreement
expires this year.


EXXONMOBIL: Oil Spill Class Action Hearing Scheduled for Jan. 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------
ArkansasMatters.com reports that a tentative trial date has been
set in a class action lawsuit filed against ExxonMobil for the
March oil spill in Mayflower.

The case is set to be heard in Federal Court in Little Rock before
Judge Brian S. Miller, during the week of January 5, 2015.

This lawsuit was filed by some Mayflower residents who were not
evacuated from their homes but who claim negative effects from the
pipeline rupture that spewed thousands of gallons of crude oil
into streets and yards.

In the final scheduling order, motion for class certification was
given a due date of February 3, 2014, discovery is due by
August 13, 2014 and all motions, except motions in limine are due
by September 8, 2014.


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Nov. 4 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Francesca's Holdings Corporation and certain of the Company's
executive officers and/or directors and underwriters.  The class
action is filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired FRAN's common stock between January 10, 2012 and
September 3, 2013.  The complaint brings forth claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In addition, the class action complaint is also filed on behalf of
investors who purchased FRAN's common stock pursuant or traceable
to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with FRAN's secondary public offerings during the Class
Period.  The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

FRAN operates as a holding company.  Through its subsidiary, the
Company retails women's apparel, jewelry, accessories and gift
products that cater to 18-35 year-old fashion conscious customers.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period and in
FRAN's Offering Documents, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about FRAN's business and financial condition.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose to FRAN investors that: (i) FRAN's
disclosures regarding its margins, same store sales and related
positive earnings were false and misleading and unsustainable;
(ii) the Company's same-store sales growth was being negatively
impacted by weather and a competitive retail environment; (iii)
FRAN dramatically increased promotional activity to meet financial
targets; (iv) FRAN concealed the Company's sales terms and margins
with its largest suppliers, which included companies owned by
family members of FRAN's founding management; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's financial statements were deficient and
misleading at all relevant times.

As a result of Defendants' false and/or misleading statements,
FRAN shares traded at inflated prices during the Class Period.
However, after disclosure of Defendant's false and/or misleading
statements, FRAN shares suffered a precipitous decline in the
market value, thereby causing significant losses and damages to
Plaintiff and other Class members.  You may obtain a copy of the
Complaint and join the class action at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased FRAN stock between January 10, 2012 and
September 3, 2013, inclusive, and/or pursuant to one of the
Company's secondary public offerings during the Class Period, you
may contact Lester Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena
White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased FRAN common stock during the Class Period of
January 10, 2012 through September 3, 2013, and/or pursuant to one
of the Company's secondary public offerings, and wish to apply to
be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must
be filed with the Court no later than November 26, 2013.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding lead
plaintiff appointment and your interest in the class action.
Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and
need not take any action at this time to be a class member.

          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Tel: (561) 394-3399
          Fax: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


HEALTHCO: Recalls Motion Activated Lights Over Electric Shock Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports about recently recalled products:

DETAILS: Multiple Heath/Zenith Motion Activated Outdoor Lights
used for porch lighting.  The product comes in 21 designs with a
variety of finishes and is designed to turn on at night when
motion is detected.  The product replaces a standard outdoor wall-
mounted light fixture.  The brand name and model number can be
found on a label located on the back of the motion sensor for
wall-mounted models, or underneath the motion sensor cover for
ceiling-mounted models.  They were sold from December 2006 to July
2013.  Brand names with their model numbers involved in the recall
can be found here: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2014/HeathCo-
Recalls-Motion-Activated-Outdoor-Lights/

WHY: The internal fixture wiring can energize the entire surface
and fittings of the fixture, posing an electrical shock hazard.

INCIDENTS: No injuries were reported.

HOW MANY: About 210,000 in the U.S. and 13,000 in Canada.

FOR MORE: Call HeathCo at 855-704-5438, send email to
hzproductnotice@heathcollc.com, or visit www.heath-zenith.com and
click on "Recall" for more information.


LAROSE INDUSTRIES: Cra-Z-Art Snoopy Sno-Cone Machines Recalled
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports about recently recalled products:

DETAILS: Cra-Z-Art Snoopy sno-cone machines with one of three
batch numbers BCH003005A28-0812, BCHTRU001A17-0812 or
BCHTRU004A16-0712 printed on the back of the white plastic
doghouse and on the side of the box.  The words "SNOOPY" and "SNO-
CONES" are on the front of the machine and "Cra-Z-Art" is on the
back.  They were sold from September 2012 through July 2013.

WHY: A brass rivet can fall out of the machine's ice-shaving
cylinder and into a sno-cone, posing a risk of injury to the mouth
or the teeth.

INCIDENTS: 64 reports of brass rivets falling out of the machine's
ice-shaving cylinder.  No injuries have been reported.

HOW MANY: About 102,000.

FOR MORE: Call LaRose Industries at 855-345-4593, send email to
recall@laroseindustries, or visit www.laroseindustries.com which
takes consumers to the Cra-Z-Art website and click on the Recall
tab more information.


MARATHON OIL: Dragged in Lac Megantic Train Explosion Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honourable Mr. Justice Martin Bureau, the judge designated to
oversee the Lac Megantic train explosion class action, granted a
motion to add two oil producers, Marathon Oil Corporation and
Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. as Respondents in the Class
Proceeding.  It is alleged that these were two of the companies
that produced the highly explosive shale liquids that were carried
on the train and that they failed to provide adequate warnings
about the composition of the shale liquids and the true dangers
associated with shipping it by rail.

The amendment includes several corporate entities which formed
various joint ventures with an existing Respondent in the case,
World Fuel Services Corp.  It is alleged that these entities were
collectively involved in purchasing the shale liquids from MRO and
Slawson and thereafter in transporting the liquids from the oil
wellheads to the transloading station in New Town, North Dakota,
where they were loaded onto rail tanker cars destined for Irving
Oil's refinery in New Brunswick.

Lac-Megantic lawyer Daniel E. Larochelle explained that these
parties were added "on the basis that they knew or should have
been aware through testing that the shale liquids carried a much
greater risk of explosion and flammability than typical crude oil.
They should have communicated this increased risk to the
purchasers and shippers of the shale liquids."  He stated that
investigations continue in order to ensure that all responsible
parties will be held accountable.

The amendment has also added two new proposed representative
petitioners, Serge Jacques and Louis-Serge Parent, both of whose
homes and businesses were destroyed as a result of the derailment
and ensuing explosions.  Further, a Motion for a Representation
Order has been filed in the MMA Canada CCAA proceedings on behalf
of all Class Members, in order to provide formal standing for all
victims in the insolvency proceedings equal to that of other
stakeholders.

A team of experienced class action lawyers has been assembled to
assist the Lac-Megantic community to prosecute this action, and
consists of Daniel Larochelle in Lac-Megantic, Consumer Law Group
in Montreal, Rochon Genova LLP of Toronto and Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP of New York and San Francisco.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Marathon Oil Corporation --
http://www.marathonoil.com-- is an international energy company
engaged in exploration and production, oil sands mining and
integrated gas with operations in the United States, Angola,
Canada, Equatorial Guinea.(E.G.), Ethiopia, Gabon, Kenya, the
Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Libya, Norway, Poland and the United
Kingdom.  The Company operates in three business segments:
Exploration and Production Segment, explores for, produces and
markets liquid hydrocarbons and natural gas on a worldwide basis;
Oil sands mining segment, mines, extracts and transports bitumen
from oil sands deposits in Alberta, Canada, and upgrades the
bitumen to produce and market synthetic crude oil and vacuum gas
oil, and integrated gas, produces and markets products
manufactured from natural gas, such as LNG and methanol, in E.G.
During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company Company
acquired approximately 25,000 net acres in the core of the Eagle
Ford shale.


MICROSOFT CORP: Lawson Lundell Discusses Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Craig A.B. Ferris, Esq. -- cferris@lawsonlundell.com --
Rodney L. Hayley, Esq. -- rhayley@lawsonlundell.com --
Lisa A. Peters, Esq. -- lpeters@lawsonlundell.com -- and
Euan Sinclair, Esq. -- esinclair@lawsonlundell.com -- at Lawson
Lundell LLP report that in a highly-anticipated and extremely
significant pair of decisions for businesses and consumers alike,
the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday, October 31, 2013,
that the ultimate consumers at the end of a supply chain can
effectively leap-frog the supply chain by having direct legal
recourse in a class action against a manufacturer who illegally
overcharged for the product supplied.

The SCC handed down simultaneous decisions in two appeals from the
British Columbia Court of Appeal, namely Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd.
v. Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57 and Sun-Rype Products Ltd.
v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2013 SCC 58 (as well as a
related decision from Quebec).

Until these decisions, Canadian law did not support a cause of
action by indirect purchasers against manufacturers or suppliers
one or more times removed up the supply chain.  While these cases
have received attention for changing that law, they are
significant for a number of reasons and to a number of classes of
persons.

The SCC expressly declined to follow U.S. Supreme Court
jurisprudence that does not allow for claims by indirect
purchasers unless specifically provided for by legislation.
Although common law at the federal level in the operates to bar
indirect purchaser class actions, thirty-five states have provided
for direct and indirect purchaser action through "repealer
statutes" or judicial decisions.

Some of the effects of these decisions will be:

    To increase the likelihood that consumers will band together
to pursue claims against manufacturers and suppliers; and
    To reinvigorate causes of action available under the
Competition Act or related to such claims (such as economic tort
claims).

But the rulings in these cases are not just important to
competition and class action law or to manufacturers and
consumers.

The SCC clarified that the so-called "passing on" defense should
be rejected across restitutionary claims.  Previously that defense
had only been rejected definitively in relation to claims for
reimbursement of taxes paid pursuant to ultra vires legislation.

By agreeing that the unjust enrichment claims in favor of indirect
purchasers should not fail at the certification stage, the SCC
opened the door to future claims where the relationship between
the plaintiff and defendant and the requisite enrichment and
corresponding detriment is more attenuated and less obviously
direct.  Accordingly, these rulings will encourage plaintiffs in
their increasingly enthusiastic pursuit of restitutionary claims
and remedies in commercial and consumer litigation.

Equally important are some of the issues the SCC left unresolved
for another day, including:

    Whether Canadian law should continue to recognize two
categories of conspiracy (predominant purpose conspiracy and
unlawful means conspiracy);

    What the proper approach is to the "unlawful means" component
of both the unlawful means class of conspiracy and the tort of
intentional interference with economic interests should be;

    Whether waiver of tort is indeed a stand-alone cause of action
that relieves plaintiffs of proving all the elements of given
torts to recover; and

    How jurisdictional issues in terms of conspiracies potentially
carried out in part outside Canada will be resolved.

The issue

The issue at stake in both appeals was whether indirect purchasers
had a certifiable class action proceeding disclosing a cause of
action as required by s. 4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act,
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50.  The British Columbia Supreme Court
certified the action on this basis, but the British Columbia Court
of Appeal set that decision aside, stating that as a matter of
law, indirect purchaser actions were not available in Canada and
therefore that the claim did not disclose a cause of action.

The BCCA followed the SCC's prior ruling in Kingstreet Investments
Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Department of Finance), 2007 SCC 1, which
definitively rejected the use of passing on as a defence.  This
defense is typically advanced by an overcharger on the ground that
the alleged overcharge was passed to others lower down the supply
chain and therefore the intermediaries suffered no loss.  Were the
defense not available in Canada, the overcharger at the top of the
chain would be exposed to multiple, duplicate claims from direct
and indirect purchasers, possibly leading to double or multiple
recovery of damages.

The SCC reaffirmed Kingstreet and broadened its application beyond
the ultra vires tax context.  It expressly rejected the
proposition that because passing on was not available as a defense
to the overcharger, indirect purchasers should be foreclosed from
claiming losses passed on to them, i.e., the offensive use of
passing on. It considered and rejected a number of arguments in
coming to that conclusion.

Double or multiple recovery: The SCC agreed with the dissenting
opinion of Donald J.A. of the BCCA, dissenting in Sun-Rype, that
"the double recovery rule should not in the abstract bar a claim
in real life cases where double recovery can be avoided" and found
there was no evidence adduced that the B.C. courts could not
preclude double or multiple recovery.

Remoteness and Complexity: The SCC held that indirect purchaser
actions should not be barred solely because of the likely
complexity associated with proof of damages.  Indirect purchasers
willingly assume this burden and the court will decide whether it
has been discharged on a case-by-case basis.

Deterrence: The SCC rejected the proposition that allowing
indirect purchaser actions would frustrate enforcement and
deterrence objectives of competition law.

Doctrinal commentary: The SCC noted that there is a significant
body of academic authority in favor of allowing indirect purchaser
actions in order to best achieve the objectives of competition
law.

Having considered the threshold question of whether offensive
passing on may be used to bring an action, the next question for
the SCC was whether there was a cause of action.

In relation to the statutory claim, this question turned on the
wording of section 36 (1) of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985,
c.C-34, which provides that "any person" who has suffered loss or
damage contrary to Part VI of the Act may sue for and recover that
loss or damage.  The respondents in the cases argued that the
benefit of this provision was unavailable to the indirect
purchasers, largely based on their fundamental position that
passed on losses are not recognized at law, and therefore section
36 was not intended to provide a right of action to indirect
purchasers.  For the reasons given above, this argument was
rejected.

In Pro-Sys Consultants, the SCC also found that it was not plain
and obvious that the following claims could not succeed:

    The claim in tort for predominant purpose conspiracy

    The claim in tort for intentional interference with economic
interests

    The claim for unjust enrichment

    The claim for waiver of tort

We will have to wait for a suitable case to reach the SCC for it
to engage on a number of interesting tort and restitution law
questions, including the scope of the tort of conspiracy in
Canadian law; whether waiver of tort is a distinct cause of
action; and when an indirect relationship between plaintiff and
defendant will support an unjust enrichment claim.

The Court did signal that it would be addressing the unlawful
means requirement of the tort of conspiracy and intentional
interference in a case in a judgment currently on reserve (Bram
Enterprises Ltd. v. A.I. Enterprises Ltd.).

Remaining certification requirements

The Class Proceedings Act requires that the claims of class
members raise common issues as a matter of central importance.
The SCC held that in order to establish commonality, evidence that
the acts alleged actually occurred is not required.  The factual
evidence required at this stage is to establish whether these
questions are common to all the class members.  The SCC said that
if and when material differences emerge, the trial judge can deal
with them when the time comes.

Expert methodology to establish some basis in fact for the
commonality requirement must be sufficiently credible or
plausible, offering a realistic prospect of establishing loss on a
class-wide basis.  That methodology "cannot be purely theoretical
or hypothetical, but must be grounded in the facts of the
particular case in question."

The SCC's rulings strengthen the "basis in fact" requirement on
certification that the Court first blessed in Hollick v. Toronto
(City), 2001 SCC 68, and therefore will be referred to by
defendants on certification applications in cases involving many
other substantive law areas.  The SCC ruled that the ultimate
decision as to whether the aggregate damages provision of the
Class Proceeding Act should be available is one that should be
left to the common issues trial judge.

In Pro-Sys Consultants, the SCC declined to interfere with the
application judge's finding that a class action was the preferable
procedure.

In the Sun-Rype case, unlike in Pro-Sys Consultants, the SCC
refused to certify the indirect purchasers as an identifiable
class.  In that case, there was no basis in evidence to link at
least two of the indirect purchasers to the purchase of the
product during the class period.  The claimants in that case ended
up winning the battle but losing the war -- the remaining claim
brought by direct purchasers was also struck as it was based on a
claim of constructive trust which the SCC found had no chance of
success.

Implications

These decisions are likely to have major ramifications in
competition law and class action procedure in Canada, but also
more broadly in terms of plaintiffs pursuing restitutionary claims
and remedies.

From a competition law perspective, allowing indirect purchasers
to bring claims will significantly increase the field of potential
plaintiffs, both generally and in class proceedings.  As a result,
we can expect more private claims under the Competition Act, and
more claims based on related economic torts, many of which will
likely be brought as class proceedings.

In addition, the rejection of the U.S. jurisprudence, which
negated indirect purchaser claims unless expressly permitted by
legislation, may lead U.S. claimants to seek redress under
Canadian law should they be able to tie themselves to Canada from
a jurisdictional point of view.  Again, this raises the potential
for an increasing number of competition and class action claims in
Canada.

The decisions makes plain that the aggregate damages provisions of
the class proceedings legislation cannot be used to establish
liability, but rather only to allow for the possibility that
damages assessed in the aggregate can be a common issue for the
class.  The SCC followed Ontario rather than B.C. appellate
authority on this point.  This result will assist defendants in
price-fixing class action cases throughout Canada as well as in
those cases involving other areas of the substantive law.

The SCC remarked that increased complexity should not be a policy
bar to indirect purchaser claims because, in part, it is up to the
plaintiff to meet that burden.  The Court did not remark on the
increased burden on defendants who need to defend these types of
claims.  It seems likely that class action counsel on the
plaintiff's side will see this increased complexity and burden as
another lever to use in attempting to settle competition class
actions.  Defendants facing these claims will need to consider the
increased cost and risk associated indirect purchaser claims in
considering how to respond to a class proceeding of this type.

Finally, the confirmation that the passing on defense is not
available in relation to any restitutionary claim and the SCC's
refusal, at the certification stage, to strike out an unjust
enrichment claim where the relationship between the enriched party
and deprived party was indirect, should encourage plaintiffs'
counsel to look to the law of restitution in consumer and
commercial cases.



NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Balk at Bid to Prevent Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that
lawyers for the plaintiffs in an anti-trust suit against the NCAA
concerning the use of college athletes' names and likenesses
argued in a filing on Nov. 4 that the association's latest effort
to keep the case from becoming a class action "distorts" and
"misrepresents" evidence presented by one of the plaintiffs
experts.

The NCAA earlier filed documents describing new evidence that they
argue is fatal to the plaintiffs' pending bid to have the case
certified as a class action.  The NCAA said new reports and recent
depositions from one of the plaintiffs' experts showed that if the
NCAA's restrictions on compensation for athletes were removed,
there would be conflicts among star players and non-star players
about how to share the available revenue.

These conflicts, the NCAA contended, prevent the plaintiffs from
meeting the class-certification criteria that are set under the
federal rules of civil legal procedure.  The criteria basically
require that there be questions of law or fact that are common to
the prospective wider class of plaintiffs and that those questions
are greater in number than any questions that affect individual
members of the prospective wider class.

In the Nov. 4 filing, the plaintiffs said economist
Daniel Rascher's primary revenue-sharing model is one under which
all athletes would share newly available money equally.  They said
he created an alternative model to rebut assertions made by NCAA
economists that, absent the NCAA's current amateurism rules, star
players would get disproportionate shares of the money.  But even
under this alternative model, the plaintiffs said, there would be
a pool of money shared equally by all players -- albeit a pool
that would be smaller than the one envisioned by the primary
revenue-sharing model.

The plaintiffs contend that "the only difference in the two
scenarios is the total damages number -- the methodology for
calculating the number remains unchanged, the equal sharing
remains the same, and the fact of injury to each class member
remains the same."

In other words, the criteria for class certification still would
be met.

The plaintiffs' lawyers also took the opportunity to contend that
although one of the NCAA's economic experts, Daniel Rubinfeld,
differs with the plaintiffs on how to model prospective revenue
sharing by college athletes, he "appears to agree with plaintiffs'
experts on much else.  In Mr. Rubinfeld's textbook,
Microeconomics, he identifies the NCAA as a 'cartel organization'
with a 'persistently high level of profits . . . [that] is
inconsistent with competition.' . . .

"He writes further that '[t]he NCAA restricts competition in a
number of important activities.  To reduce bargaining power by
student athletes, the NCAA creates and enforces rules regarding
eligibility and terms of compensation.' "


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Class Suit Still Has No Activity
------------------------------------------------------------
In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a 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, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2013.

In the event R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Indirect Purchasers Antitrust Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2013, all of the federal and state court cases
on behalf of indirect purchasers to tobacco had been dismissed,
Reynolds American Inc. disclosed in its October 22, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
("RJR Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("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, 2013, all of the federal
and state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been
dismissed.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI's Bid for Indemnification Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
By purchase agreement dated March 9, 1999, amended and restated as
of May 11, 1999, referred to as the 1999 Purchase Agreement, R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR") and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company ("RJR Tobacco") sold the international tobacco business to
Japan Tobacco International ("JTI").  Under the 1999 Purchase
Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco retained certain liabilities
relating to the international tobacco business sold to JTI.  Under
its reading of the indemnification provisions of the 1999 Purchase
Agreement, JTI has requested indemnification for damages allegedly
arising out of these retained liabilities.  As previously
reported, a number of the indemnification claims between the
parties relating to the activities of Northern Brands in Canada
have been resolved.  The other matters for which JTI has requested
indemnification for damages under the indemnification provisions
of the 1999 Purchase Agreement are:

   * In a letter dated March 31, 2006, counsel for JTI stated
     that JTI would be seeking indemnification under the 1999
     Purchase Agreement for any damages it may incur or may have
     incurred arising out of a Southern District of New York
     grand jury investigation, a now-terminated Eastern District
     of North Carolina grand jury investigation, and various
     actions filed by the European Community and others in the
     U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
     referred to as the EDNY, against RJR Tobacco and certain of
     its affiliates on November 3, 2000, August 6, 2001, and
     October 30, 2002, and against JTI on January 11, 2002.

   * JTI also has sought indemnification relating to a Statement
     of Claim filed on April 23, 2010, against JTI Macdonald
     Corp., referred to as JTI-MC, by the Ontario Flue-Cured
     Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, referred to as the Board,
     Andy J. Jacko, Brian Baswick, Ron Kichler, and Aprad
     Dobrenty, proceeding on their own behalf and on behalf of a
     putative class of Ontario tobacco producers that sold
     tobacco to JTI-MC during the period between January 1, 1986,
     and December 31, 1996, referred to as the Class Period,
     through the Board pursuant to certain agreements.  The
     Statement of Claim seeks recovery for damages allegedly
     incurred by the class representatives and the putative class
     for tobacco sales during the Class Period made at the
     contract price for duty free or export cigarettes with
     respect to cigarettes that, rather than being sold duty free
     or for export, purportedly were sold in Canada, which
     allegedly breached one or more of a series of contracts
     dated between June 4, 1986, and July 3, 1996.  A motion to
     dismiss has been filed.

   * Finally, JTI has advised RJR and RJR Tobacco of its view
     that, under the terms of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR
     and RJR Tobacco are liable for a roughly $1.7 million
     judgment entered in 1998, plus interest and costs, in an
     action filed in Brazil by Lutz Hanneman, a former employee
     of a former RJR Tobacco subsidiary. RJR and RJR Tobacco deny
     that they are liable for this judgment under the terms of the
     1999 Purchase Agreement.

Although RJR and RJR Tobacco recognize that, under certain
circumstances, they may have these and other unresolved
indemnification obligations to JTI under the 1999 Purchase
Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco disagree with JTI as to (1) what
circumstances relating to any such matters may give rise to
indemnification obligations by RJR and RJR Tobacco, and (2) the
nature and extent of any such obligation.  RJR and RJR Tobacco
have conveyed their position to JTI, and the parties have agreed
to resolve their differences at a later time.

No further updates were reported in Reynolds American Inc.'s
October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Class Suit Remains Stayed in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., remains
stayed, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s October 22, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

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 R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.
("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.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports 2,574 Broin II Cases as of Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. disclosed in its October 22, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2013, that there are 2,574 Broin
II Cases pending in Florida as of September 30, 2013.

Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company ("RJR Tobacco") and other cigarette manufacturer
defendants settled Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. in October 1997.
This case had been brought in Florida state court on behalf of
flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or
ailments caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS")
in airplane cabins.  The settlement agreement required the
participating tobacco companies to pay a total of $300 million in
three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the
companies by market share, to fund research on the early detection
and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke.  It also
required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for the
plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses.  RJR Tobacco's portion of
these payments was approximately $86 million; B&W's portion of
these payments was approximately $57 million.  The settlement
agreement bars class members from bringing aggregate claims or
obtaining punitive damages and also bars individual claims to the
extent that they are based on fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy
to commit fraud or misrepresentation, Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), suppression, concealment or
any other alleged intentional or willful conduct.  The defendants
agreed that, in any individual case brought by a class member, the
defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether
ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred
to as "general causation."  With respect to all other issues
relating to liability, including whether an individual plaintiff's
disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane
cabins, referred to as "specific causation," the individual
plaintiff will have the burden of proof.  On September 7, 1999,
the Florida Supreme Court approved the settlement.  The Broin II
cases arose out of the settlement of this case.

On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to
all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement
agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to
prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or
negligence.  Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption
in the plaintiffs' favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs
bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health
effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane
cabins, that is, specific causation.

As of September 30, 2013, there were 2,574 Broin II lawsuits
pending in Florida.  There have been no Broin II trials since
2007.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Seven Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seven class action lawsuits involving Reynolds American Inc.
remain pending in Canada, according to the Company's October 22,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

Seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") and one of its
affiliates, in courts in the Provinces of Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan,
although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively pursuing only
the action pending in British Columbia at this time:

   (1) 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.  RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have
       brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the
       Saskatchewan court.

   (2) 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.

   (3) 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.

   (4) 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.

   (5) 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.  RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a
       challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia
       court. The plaintiff filed a motion for certification in
       April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in August
       2013.

   (6) 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.  RJR Tobacco
       and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the
       jurisdiction of the British Columbia court.

   (7) In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
       case filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of
       Justice 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 obstructive pulmonary disease, heart
       disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of
       25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
       marketed, or distributed by the defendants.

In each of these seven 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 seven actions to Japan Tobacco International
("JTI").  Subject to a reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the
defense of RJR Tobacco and its current or former affiliates in
these actions.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Collora" Suit on Feb. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for February 3, 2014, in the
class action lawsuit styled Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2013.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. ("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.  A status
conference is scheduled for February 3, 2014.

In the event R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Turner" Suit on Jan. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for January 29, 2014, in the
class action lawsuit titled Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2013.

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.  A status conference is
scheduled for January 29, 2014.

In the event R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Jones" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
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 R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") or Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.
("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 is currently no activity in this case, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2013.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Sateriale" Suit Set for Nov. 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit styled Sateriale v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. is scheduled for November 4, 2014, according
to Reynolds American Inc.'s October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2013.

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 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.

In July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract.
RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied
in October 2012.  RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
third amended complaint in December 2012.  Trial is scheduled for
November 4, 2014.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Two Antitrust Suits vs. Units Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two antitrust lawsuits involving subsidiaries of Reynolds American
Inc. remain pending, according to the Company's October 22, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

In 2004, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") and Brown
& Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W") separately settled the
antitrust case DeLoach v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., which was
brought by a unique class of plaintiffs: a class of all tobacco
growers and tobacco allotment holders.  The plaintiffs asserted
that the defendants conspired to fix the price of tobacco leaf and
to destroy the federal government's tobacco quota and price
support program.  Despite legal defenses they believed to be
valid, RJR Tobacco and B&W separately settled this case to avoid a
long and contentious trial with the tobacco growers.  The DeLoach
case and the antitrust case currently pending against RJR Tobacco
and B&W involve different types of plaintiffs and different
theories of recovery under the antitrust laws than the smoking and
health cases pending against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and
indemnitees.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Remains Stayed in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Young v. American Tobacco Co.,
Inc. remains stayed in Louisiana, according to Reynolds American
Inc.'s October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") class action
against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc. ("B&W"), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.
("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 March 2013, the court
entered an order staying the case, including all discovery,
pending the implementation of the smoking cessation program
ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


SHOPPERS DRUG: Ontario Court Certifies Franchisees' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP on Nov. 5 disclosed that
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action
against Shoppers Drug Mart on behalf of past and present associate
franchisees of Shoppers Drug Mart throughout Canada, excluding
Quebec.

The plaintiffs are two pharmacists and their respective
professional corporations that operate Shoppers Drug Mart
franchises.  The plaintiffs are represented by the Toronto law
firm Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

In the class action, the plaintiffs allege that Shoppers Drug Mart
breached its franchise agreements by the way it carries out its
inventory practices, and by charging excessive cost recovery fees
for services it provides and in respect of contracts and leases
relating to the class members' stores.  The plaintiffs seek, on
behalf of the class, compensation for these alleged breaches of
contract.

In addition, the plaintiffs seek compensation for losses suffered
by a subclass of current and former franchisees whose franchises
are or were located in Ontario.  This claim relates to money
collected by Shoppers Drug Mart in respect of professional
allowances that it allegedly received on behalf of this subclass
of franchisees.

None of the allegations have been proven in court, and the
defendants deny liability.

If you entered into an Associate Agreement with Shoppers Drug Mart
between January 1, 2002 and July 9, 2013 and your franchised
business is located in Canada, excluding Quebec, you are a member
of the class and, potentially, the subclass.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Nov. 18 Settlement Approval Order Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
        TO: All persons and entities, wherever they may reside,
who acquired any securities of Sino-Forest Corporation including
securities acquired in the primary, secondary, and over-the-
counter markets.

        READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL
RIGHTS.
        YOU MAY NEED TO TAKE PROMPT ACTION
        IMPORTANT DEADLINES
        Claims Bar Deadline (to file a claim for compensation from
the Ernst & Young Settlement.)   February 14, 2014
        Objection Deadline (for those who wish to object or make
submissions regarding the proposed November 29, 2013
        Claims and Distribution Protocol or the fee and
disbursement request of
        Class Counsel.)

Background of Sino-Forest Class Action and CCAA Proceeding

In June and July of 2011, class actions were commenced in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Quebec Superior Court by
certain plaintiffs against Sino-Forest Corporation, its senior
officers and directors, its underwriters, a consulting company,
and its auditors, including Ernst & Young LLP.  In January 2012, a
proposed class action was commenced against Sino-Forest and other
defendants in the Supreme Court of the State of New York which is
now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The actions alleged that the public filings
of Sino-Forest contained false and misleading statements about
Sino-Forest's assets, business, and transactions.  The actions
also allege that Ernst & Young issued false and misleading audit
opinions on Sino-Forest's financial statements issued during the
class period.

Since that time, the litigation has been vigorously contested. On
March 30, 2012, Sino-Forest obtained creditor protection under the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and the Ontario Superior
Court ordered a stay of proceedings against the company and other
parties, including Ernst & Young.  Orders and other materials
relevant to the CCAA Proceeding can be found at the CCAA Monitor's
website at http://cfcanada.fticonsulting.com/sfc/

On December 10, 2012, a Plan of Arrangement was approved by the
court in the CCAA Proceeding.  As part of the Plan of Arrangement,
the court approved a framework by which the Plaintiffs may enter
into settlement agreements with any of the third-party defendants
to the Proceedings.

Settlement with Ernst & Young

The Plaintiffs have entered into a settlement with Ernst & Young.
The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice by an order dated March 20, 2013.  Pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement, Ernst & Young will pay CAD$117,000,000
to a Settlement Trust to be administered in accordance with orders
of the court.

In return, the action will be dismissed against Ernst & Young, and
there will be an order forever barring claims against it in
relation to Sino-Forest including any allegations relating to the
Proceedings.  Ernst & Young does not admit to any wrongdoing or
liability.  The terms of the Settlement Agreement do not involve
the resolution of any claims against Sino-Forest or any of the
other defendants.  For information regarding CCAA orders affecting
Sino-Forest, including the Settlement Approval Order, please see
the Monitor's Website.  A complete copy of the Settlement
Agreement and other information about these proceedings is
available at: http://www.kmlaw.ca/sinoforestclassactionand
http://www.sinoeysettlement.com

The Settlement Agreement is contingent on the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
recognizing the Settlement Approval Order.  A hearing to recognize
the Settlement Approval Order will be held in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court on November 18, 2013.

Who Acts for the Securities Claimants

Koskie Minsky LLP, Siskinds LLP, Siskinds Desmeules, sencrl, and
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC represent the Securities
Claimants in the Proceedings.  If you want to be represented by
another lawyer, you may hire one to appear in court for you at
your own expense.

You will not have to directly pay any fees or expenses to Class
Counsel.  However, Class Counsel will seek to have their fees and
expenses paid from any money obtained for the class or paid
separately by the defendants.  The fee request of Class Counsel in
connection with the Settlement Agreement is explained below.

Hearing to Approve the Claims and Distribution Protocol and Class
Counsel Fees on December 13, 2013 in Toronto, Ontario

On December 13, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., there will be a hearing before
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at which Class Counsel will
seek that Court's approval of (1) the plan for allocating the Net
Settlement Amount among the members of the Securities Claimants;
and (2) the fees and expense reimbursement requests of Class
Counsel.  The hearing will be held at the Canada Life Building,
330 University Avenue, 8th Floor, Toronto, Ontario.  The exact
courtroom number will be available on a notice board on the 8th
Floor.

The proposed Claims and Distribution Protocol sets out, among
other things, i) the method by which the Administrator will review
and process claims forms; and ii) the method by which the
Administrator will calculate the amount of compensation to be
distributed to each Securities Claimant, including the Allocation
System, which assigns different risk adjustment factors to
different Sino-Forest securities depending on factors such as the
type of security acquired and the time that security was acquired.
Persons that suffered the same loss on their Sino-Forest
securities may receive different levels of compensation, depending
on the risk adjustment factors assigned to their securities.

The detailed proposed Claims and Distribution Protocol can be
found at the Class Action Websites, or by contacting Class Counsel
at the contact information set out at the end of this notice.  The
court has discretion to modify the proposed Claims and
Distribution Protocol.

At the Distribution Protocol and Fee Hearing, Class Counsel will
also seek court approval of its request for fees and expense
reimbursements.  As is customary in class actions, Class Counsel
is prosecuting and will continue to prosecute this class action on
a contingent fee basis.  Class Counsel is not paid as the matter
proceeds, and Class Counsel funds the out-of-pocket expenses of
conducting the litigation.  Class Counsel will be requesting the
following fees and disbursements to be deducted from the
Settlement Amount before it is distributed to Class Members:

Koskie Minsky LLP, Siskinds LLP, Siskinds Desmeules, sencrl
Amount requested: $17,846,250, plus disbursements (expenses), plus
taxes

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Amount requested: $2,340,000, plus disbursements (expenses), plus
taxes

The court materials in support of these fee and disbursement
requests will be posted on the Class Action Websites prior to the
Distribution Protocol and Fee Hearing.

Expenses incurred or payable relating to notification,
implementation, and administration of the settlement will also be
paid from the Settlement Amount.

The Plaintiffs have also entered into a litigation funding
agreement with Claims Funding International PLC.  Pursuant to that
agreement, CFI has agreed to pay any adverse cost awards against
the Plaintiffs in this litigation, and to pay $50,000 towards
disbursements.  In return, CFI is entitled to 5% of any net
recovery in these actions up to a maximum of $5 million if the
action is resolved before the pre-trial or 7% of net recovery up
to a maximum of $10 million if the action is resolved after the
pre-trial.  The litigation funding agreement with CFI was approved
by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on May 17, 2012.

The amount of funds remaining after deduction of Class Counsel
Fees, Administration Expenses, and payment to CFI will be
distributed to the Securities Claimants.

Securities Claimants may attend at the hearing of the Distribution
Protocol and Fee Hearing and ask to make submissions regarding the
Claims and Distribution Protocol or Class Counsel's fee and
expense reimbursement request.

Persons intending to object to the Claims and Distribution
Protocol or the Class Counsel fees and expense reimbursement
request are required to deliver a Notice of Objection,
substantially in the form that can be found on the Class Action
Websites, and, if this Notice is received by mail or email,
enclosed with this Notice, to Siskinds LLP by regular mail,
courier, or email transmission, to the contact information
indicated on the Notice of Objection, so that it is received by no
later than 5:00 p.m. on November 29, 2013.  Copies of the Notices
of Objection sent to Siskinds LLP will be filed with the court.

THE COURT MAY APPROVE A CLAIMS AND DISTRIBUTION PROTOCOL THAT IS
DIFFERENT THAN THE CLAIMS AND DISTRIBUTION PROTOCOL THAT IS
PROPOSED BY CLASS COUNSEL. WHETHER OR NOT THEY SUBMIT A VALID
CLAIM FORM, ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT ARE ENTITLED TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE E&Y SETTLEMENT WILL BE BOUND BY THE CLAIMS AND
DISTRIBUTION PROTOCOL, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, THAT IS APPROVED BY THE
COURT.

The Administrator

The Court has appointed NPT RicePoint as the Administrator of the
settlement.  The Administrator will, among other things: (i)
receive and process the Claim Forms (discussed below); (ii) make
determinations of Class Members' eligibility for compensation
pursuant to the Claims and Distribution Protocol; (iii)
communicate with Class Members regarding their eligibility for
compensation; and (iv) manage and distribute the Net Settlement
Amount.  The Administrator can be contacted at:

        Mailing Address:  NPT RicePoint Class Action Services
                          Sino-Forest Class Action
                          P.O. Box 3355
                          London, ON N6A 4K3
                          Telephone: 1-866-432-5534
                          E-mail Address: sino@nptricepoint.com
                          Website: http://www.nptricepoint.com

Claims Filing Procedure and Deadline

Securities Claimants will only be eligible for compensation from
the Net Settlement Amount if they submit a complete Claim Form
before the Claims Bar Deadline including any supporting
documentation with the Administrator.

Claim Forms are available on the Class Action Websites or, if you
are receiving this notice by mail or email, attached to this
notice.

To be eligible for compensation, Class Members must submit their
Claim Form, postmarked via mail or email to the Administrator at
the addresses listed above NO LATER THAN February 14, 2014.  If
you do not submit a Claim Form by the Claims Bar Deadline, you
will not receive any compensation from the Net Settlement Amount
but will remain bound by the final Settlement Order and release.

Please note that Noteholders who still held their notes as of
January 16, 2013 do not need to complete a Claim Form in respect
of those notes.  Claim Forms will still need to be filed in
respect of any other notes.

The Net Settlement Amount will be distributed to Class Members in
accordance with the Claims and Distribution Protocol that is
approved by the Court.

If you file a Claim Form to participate in this settlement, you
may not be required to file additional Claim Forms to participate
in any future judgments or settlements in this litigation.
However, you must ensure that the Administrator is advised of any
changes to your mailing address.

Please do not direct inquiries about this notice to the Court. All
inquiries should be directed to the Administrator or Class
Counsel.

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE


SLAWSON EXPLORATION: Dragged in Lac Megantic Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Honourable Mr. Justice Martin Bureau, the judge designated to
oversee the Lac Megantic train explosion class action, granted a
motion to add two oil producers, Marathon Oil Corporation and
Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. as Respondents in the Class
Proceeding.  It is alleged that these were two of the companies
that produced the highly explosive shale liquids that were carried
on the train and that they failed to provide adequate warnings
about the composition of the shale liquids and the true dangers
associated with shipping it by rail.

The amendment includes several corporate entities which formed
various joint ventures with an existing Respondent in the case,
World Fuel Services Corp.  It is alleged that these entities were
collectively involved in purchasing the shale liquids from MRO and
Slawson and thereafter in transporting the liquids from the oil
wellheads to the transloading station in New Town, North Dakota,
where they were loaded onto rail tanker cars destined for Irving
Oil's refinery in New Brunswick.

Lac-Megantic lawyer Daniel E. Larochelle explained that these
parties were added "on the basis that they knew or should have
been aware through testing that the shale liquids carried a much
greater risk of explosion and flammability than typical crude oil.
They should have communicated this increased risk to the
purchasers and shippers of the shale liquids."  He stated that
investigations continue in order to ensure that all responsible
parties will be held accountable.

The amendment has also added two new proposed representative
petitioners, Serge Jacques and Louis-Serge Parent, both of whose
homes and businesses were destroyed as a result of the derailment
and ensuing explosions.  Further, a Motion for a Representation
Order has been filed in the MMA Canada CCAA proceedings on behalf
of all Class Members, in order to provide formal standing for all
victims in the insolvency proceedings equal to that of other
stakeholders.

A team of experienced class action lawyers has been assembled to
assist the Lac-Megantic community to prosecute this action, and
consists of Daniel Larochelle in Lac-Megantic, Consumer Law Group
in Montreal, Rochon Genova LLP of Toronto and Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP of New York and San Francisco.


SOUTHERN TELECOM: A/C Adaptors Recalled Due to Fire Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports about recently recalled products:

DETAILS: A/C Adaptor (charger) included with Polaroid PMID 709
Internet Tablets.  The adaptor has two prongs for plugging into an
outlet on one end and a wire leading to a single plug for the
tablet.  A label on the bottom of the casing near the plug prongs
has "Polaroid Power Adaptor" printed on it with the model number
SX-30017-D.  They were sold at Big Lots in July 2013.

WHY: The adaptors can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

INCIDENTS: 10 reports of the adaptor overheating.  No injuries or
property damage have been reported.

HOW MANY: 21,000.

FOR MORE: Call Southern Telecom at 866-450-4493, or visit
www.southerntelecom.com and go to Product Support and click on
"PMID709 A/C Adaptor Exchange Program" for more information.


TARGET CORP: Circo-Brand Chloe And Conner Sitting Stools Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports about recently recalled products:

DETAILS: Circo-brand Chloe and Conner sitting stools.  The
children's sitting stools were sold as part of the Circo-brand
Chloe & Conner Collection.  Item numbers 249200218 (red),
249200207 (white), 249200217 (navy), 249200208 (pink) are printed
on a sticker on the underside of the stools.  They were sold at
Target stores from April 2012 through June 2013.

WHY: The stabilizing bar can crack and cause the stool to
collapse, posing a fall hazard.

INCIDENTS: Seven reports of the stools breaking or collapsing and
causing a child to fall.  In five of the reported incidents,
bumps, bruises and cuts were reported.

HOW MANY: About 69,000.

FOR MORE: Call Target at 800-440-0680, send email to
guest.relations@target.com, or visit www.target.com and click on
Product Recalls at the bottom of the page and then select
"Children's & Baby Products."


TREASURY WINE: Investors Launch Class Action Over Writedown
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Kelly, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
disgruntled investors launched a class action against Treasury
Wine Estates Ltd., claiming the winemaker breached continuous
disclosure requirements in relation to a recent 154.7 million
Australian dollar (US$147.2 million) writedown of its U.S. assets.

In a stock market filing on Nov. 5, Treasury Wine said legal
proceedings were served against the company on Nov. 4 by an
attorney acting for a company called Melbourne City Investments on
behalf of itself and an unspecified group of other investors.

"Treasury Wine Estates strongly denies any and all allegations of
wrongdoing, and will defend the proceedings vigorously," the
company said in the statement.

Earlier this year, the company destroyed thousands of gallons of
wine that had passed its prime after it vastly overestimated U.S.
demand.  The writedown, first flagged in July, included costs
associated with destroying the wine, discounts offered to clear
excess inventory, and the cancellation of onerous sales contracts.

The world's No. 2 winemaker dismissed its former chief executive
David Dearie in September and is currently searching for a
replacement.


UNITED STATES: Federal Employees File Suit Over Gov't Shutdown
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kellie Lunney, writing for Government Executive, reports that
federal employees who worked during the government shutdown are
suing Uncle Sam for damages because they weren't paid on time.

The collective action lawsuit filed by five Bureau of Prisons
employees in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims alleges the
government violated the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act when it
delayed full pay for excepted employees until agencies reopened on
Oct. 17.  The suit asks the government to compensate excepted
employees at a rate of $7.25 per hour times the number of hours
worked between Oct. 1 and Oct. 5, as well as any applicable
overtime.  Employees who worked 8-hour days at that rate for five
days would be entitled to $290 in back pay under the lawsuit, plus
any overtime they are due.

If successful, the plaintiffs would end up receiving double back
pay for the trouble the government shutdown caused them.  All
government employees, excepted and furloughed, should have
received their back pay for Oct. 1 through Oct. 5 by now.
Employees who remain on the job during a shutdown are guaranteed
back pay by law; Congress has to approve back pay for furloughed
workers, which it did for the 16-day shutdown.  About 1.3 million
federal employees were excepted during the shutdown.

The affected pay period ran from Sept. 22 through Oct. 5; the
government shut down on Oct. 1, so most federal civilian employees
were not paid for Oct. 1 through Oct. 5 in their Oct. 11 paycheck.
Military service members and many Defense Department civilians,
however, were paid on time during the government shutdown.  The
Pay Our Military Act, which President Obama signed into law on
Sept. 30, ensured that all active-duty and reserve members of the
armed forces, as well as any civilians and contractors working in
support of those forces, were paid on time regardless of the
shutdown's duration.

Everyone has been "made whole" at this point, but the plaintiffs
in Martin et al. v. The United States argue that the paycheck
delay because of the shutdown meant they had trouble paying their
bills on time.  Martina Copeland, an accounting technician who
works for the government, said her family struggled with payments
during the shutdown.  Ms. Copeland, who has three children and is
married to another federal worker, participated in a press
conference on Nov. 4 organized by lawyers at the Washington firm
Mehri and Skalet.  The firm, which specializes in employment
discrimination cases, is representing the federal employees in
Martin et al. v. The United States.

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to compensate
covered nonexempt employees for any losses they might have
suffered as a result of not receiving minimum wages or overtime
pay on their scheduled pay day.


VICAL INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 5
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Vical Incorporated and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
California, and docketed under 13-cv-02653, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Vical between February 8, 2012
and August 12, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Vical securities during the
Class Period, you have until December 31, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Vical is a biopharmaceutical company that researches and develops
products based on patented DNA delivery technologies for the
prevention and treatment of serious and life-threatening
illnesses, including cancer.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
Defendants repeatedly touted the importance and potential success
of Allovectin, an immunotherapy vaccine that targets cancer.
Investors were led to believe that Allovectin would receive
approval from the FDA through Defendants' dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Phase 3
trial design and results.  Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements concerning Allovectin's efficacy and
likelihood of success in the Phase 3 trial and the overall current
and future business prospects for Allovectin and the Company.  As
a result of Defendants' misleading statements, Vical's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On August 12, 2013, Vical announced the results of the Phase 3
Allovectin trial, which showed that the vaccine failed to
demonstrate an improvement over chemotherapy.  The company further
announced that since "Allovectin simply did not provide the
expected benefits," the program would be terminated.  On this
news, Vical shares fell $2.05 per share or more than 57%, to close
at $1.53 on August 12, 2013.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego,
The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


VISA INC: Faces Class Action in California Over Zipcar Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Woodland, writing for Law360, reports that Visa Inc. was hit
with a proposed class action in California federal court on Nov. 4
by a cardholder who says the company implemented a policy to
refuse promised benefits to those who rented Zipcars because it is
"not a car rental company."

The lawsuit raises allegations that the policy resulted in a
breach of Visa's promise to provide Visa credit cardholders with a
benefit known as the Auto Rental Collision Damage Waiver.  With
the Auto Rental CDW, Visa offers to reimburse cardholders for
money owed for damage or theft related to a car rental if the
consumer pays with a Visa card and declines the rental company's
collision damage waiver, according to the suit.

The plaintiff says the global payments technology company has a
secret policy to decline the benefit to those who rent through
Zipcar, because it is a "car share" company.

"While Visa does disclaim certain types of rentals or transactions
in its Auto Rental CDW agreement to consumer, Visa fails to make
any disclaimer or exclusion for rentals made through Zipcar," the
complaint says.  "Regardless of Visa's internal policy, Zipcar is
a car rental company, and thus rentals made through Zipcar are
covered by the Auto Rental CDW benefit."

The lawsuit further says Zipcar customers do not "share" ownership
in the cars they rent and have no ownership rights in the vehicles
whatsoever.

"For the purposes of the Visa Auto Rental CDW benefit, there is no
meaningful distinction between a rental through Zipcar and rentals
made through other companies which are covered by the benefit,"
the plaintiff's counsel wrote in the complaint.

Named plaintiff Ron Davis, who used his Visa-branded Alaska
Airlines Signature credit card to rent from Zipcar in October 2012
and declined the company's optional deductible insurance, incurred
$721.70 in damage to the rental.  Mr. Davis then made a timely
claim against the Auto Rental CDW benefit for the amount, and Visa
declined the coverage and cited its uniform, internal policy
considering Zipcar as something other than a rental car company.

As a result, Mr. Davis and the potential class members are injured
because they have not and will not receive their promised benefit
for rentals made through Zipcar, according to the suit.

The suit alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief, and
violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil
Code and the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions
Code.

Mr. Davis seeks an order certifying the action as a class action;
an order finding Visa has breached the Auto Rental CDW benefit
agreement; an order enjoining Visa from continuing the unlawful
business practices; an order requiring Visa to consider Zipcar
rentals as qualified rental vehicles; and an order requiring Visa
to compensate the plaintiffs and the members of the class.  He
further seeks declaratory relief, statutory prejudgment interest,
punitive damages and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs of
suit.

Charles D. Marshall of Marshall Law Firm, counsel to Davis, said
the language of Visa's Auto Rental Collision Damage Waiver benefit
is very broad, but that Visa is attempting to narrow it through an
internal policy to exclude Zipcar rentals without informing its
customers and without changing the language of its agreement.

"Visa makes a lot of money by enticing cardholders to use to its
cards and thus the Visa payment network -- the damage collision
waiver benefit is one of the ways VISA gets people to do that,"
Marshall told Law360 on Nov. 4.  "Our client and the proposed
class members held up their end of the bargain; now we want Visa
to hold up theirs and provide the benefit promised without
limiting it through a secret, internal policy.  Visa's policy
decision to exclude Zipcar rentals from CDW coverage is simply out
of step with its promise."

Representatives for Visa didn't immediately return requests for
comment on Nov. 4.

Mr. Davis is represented by Charles D. Marshall of Marshall Law
Firm.

Counsel information for Visa wasn't immediately available.

The case is Ron Davis v. Visa Inc., case number 3:13-cv-5125, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.


YELP INC: May Owe $12.8BB to Volunteer Reviewers, Post Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Dewey, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
there's a glaring problem in the recent class-action lawsuit
demanding that Yelp pay its horde of volunteer reviewers: If Yelp
shelled out for each review posted on the site in the past nine
years, the company could owe $12.8 billion -- billion! -- to its
users.

That number is based on the 47 million reviews Yelp has racked up
since its launch, and the $273/review repayment that one man
involved in the suit says he is seeking.

Daniel Bernath, an Oregon-based disability lawyer, Portlandia
extra and all-around Internet personality, wrote on Facebook on
Sept. 14 that he was "filing a class action lawsuit" to get Yelp
to pay $273 per review and urging others to sign on.  It's not
clear how Mr. Bernath is involved in the suit, since he's not
named in the filing, but it's pretty clear that he's close to it:
the class-action's official webpage is registered to him, and he
had all the details of the case in September, before it went
public.

The suit's attorney of record, Randy Rosenblatt, wouldn't confirm
that number or make any comment about the case. ("We are not
seeking public acceptance or to enter into any contentious
discussions," he e-mailed.)  But Mr. Rosenblatt already laid out
his argument in an Oct. 20 filing.  Yelp's volunteer reviewers,
particularly its elite reviewers, are essentially employees, it
argues. And because they're essentially employees, they should get
paid for their work.

Many, many other people have already disputed the logic and good
sense of that reasoning.  But Mr. Bernath's compensation
calculations make it clear that the suit has a problem bigger than
good sense -- the economics just don't work.

Yelp is expecting 2013 revenues of only $228 million to $229
million.  In other words, paying reviewers $273 per review would
cost Yelp 56 times what it makes in an entire year, and almost
three times its current market capitalization.

And really, if Yelp reviewers are just slaves writing for the man,
why stop there? Theoretically every Web site with user reviews
should also be liable.  So Tripadvisor -- $945.3 million in
projected 2013 revenues, 125 million reviews -- would owe $34.1
billion. Angie's List, which sees 60,000 reviews a month, would
owe something like $196 million a year.  We won't even get started
on sites like Amazon and Google Places, which have customer bases
in the tens of millions.

Put simply, if user review sites had to pay reviewers what
Mr. Bernath believes is a fair wage, user review sites would
probably cease to exist.

Intriguingly, this also sounds like a quandary that comes up from
time to time when discussing the media -- Internet media, in
particular.  There is clearly a vast world of difference, however,
between an intern working 12-hour days for less than a dollar an
hour and an Internet consumer voluntarily plunking out a few words
for an Internet review site. And even the more litigious interns
out there aren't demanding payment of $273 for every blurb they
write -- a number Mr. Bernath calls the "fair market value of a
writer getting paid a days [sic] wages according to the United
States Department of Labor's Dictionary of Occupational Titles."

Never mind that surely most Yelp reviews take less than a day to
write . . . and that, at that rate, the "fair market" salary for a
writer is nearly $70,000 a year.  That's a bit of industry irony
not lost on blogger Patrick Coffee, who wrote over at Mediabistro:

"As someone who (barely) gets paid to write about restaurants, I
find this story pretty funny. Of course these people aren't Yelp
employees and they have no legal standing to demand payment.  But
they do have the ultimate advantage, because my kind isn't long
for this revenue-free media world."


                             *********

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., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. 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 $775 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
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *