CAR_Public/141016.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 16, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 206

                             Headlines

AMERICAN RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CTY, GA: Fails to Pay Overtime, Firefighter Says
BJ'S CARGO: "Corniel" Suit Transferred From E.D. to S.D. New York
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Proceedings Stayed in Direct Purchaser Action
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Feb. 10-12 Hearing in Indirect Purchaser Action

CAL-MAINE FOODS: July 2015 Deadline to File Dispositive Motions
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Finalizing Settlement Papers With Retailers
CANCUN MARKET: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
CENTRIC GROUP: Illegally Called Class Members' Phones, Suit Says
CHRYSLER GROUP: Removes "Tomassini" Class Suit to N.D. New York

CNL WINGS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages
COMPASS GROUP: "Terrero" Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. New York
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Wallace" Discrimination Suit in Tex.
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Anticipates Consolidation of Antitrust Suits
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Prevailed in 10th Cir. Appeal

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Class Action Legal Fees Total $1.7MM in 2014
GREEN TREE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Fla.
HARVARD COLLECTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit in Northern District of Georgia
I.C. SYSTEM: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

INTERGROUP CORP: Partnership Paid Entire $525,000 Settlement
LIBERTY SILVER: Seeks to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
LOWE'S HOME: Faces "Ingram-Fleming" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Goodhue" Suit to Tennessee District Court
MODEL N INC: Removes Plymouth IPO-Related Suit to N.D. California

OCEAN STATE JOBBERS: "Scribner" Suit Transferred to Conn.
PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Faces Suit in California Over Unsolicited Calls
PATIENT ACCOUNTING: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Tobacco-Related Cases Served Against RJR
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 947 Engle Progeny Cases Pending in Dist. Court

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 24 Engle Progeny Cases Became Final
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Updates on Verdicts in Engle Progeny Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in 3rd Qtr 2014
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 95 Individual Smoking and Health Cases Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Brief Due in "Izzarelli" Case Appeal

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Oral Argument in "Whitney" Appeal Held
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Complete in West Virginia IPIC
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 8 "Lights" Class Actions Pending at Sept. 17
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. 4 Trial in Sateriale Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Price v. PM" Appeal

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. 19 Status Conference in "Turner" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Howard" v. B&W
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2 Status Conference in "Black" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Only Bourassa Case Being Pursued at This Time
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Indirect Purchasers Cases Dismissed at Sept 17
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs in "Smith" File Petition for Review
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Class Actions Filed Over Lorillard Deal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Defendant in Corwin v British American Tobacco

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Named as Defendant in 6 Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Stay Court Mandate Still Pending
SALVATORE'S CORP: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
SB SOUTHERN: "Roberts" Suit Transferred From W.D. to N.D. Texas
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Accused of Refusing to Accept Resignations

SOUTH CAROLINA, USA: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
SPOONFUL MANAGEMENT: Removes "Gonzalez" Suit to S.D. Florida
SWF OPERATIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
TRG CUSTOMER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Minter" Suit in Northern District of Georgia


                            *********


AMERICAN RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chaim Feldman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Recovery Service Incorporated, Case No. 1:14-
cv-05897-CBA-JO (E.D.N.Y., October 8, 2014) seeks relief under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CTY, GA: Fails to Pay Overtime, Firefighter Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Morris, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00196-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., October 9, 2014) is a collective action
brought on behalf of current and former firefighters employed by
the Defendant for violation of the overtime provision of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, is a government entity and
public agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Hafemann, Esq.
          219 Scott Street, PMB 315
          Beaufort, SC 29902-5554
          Telephone: (855) 645-5878
          Facsimile: (843) 645-6530

               - and -

          Jeremy S. McKenzie, Esq.
          C. Dorian Britt, Esq.
          KARSMAN, MCKENZIE & HART
          21 W. Park Avenue
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 335-4977
          Facsimile: (912) 351-0085
          E-mail: jeremy@themckenzielawfirm.com


BJ'S CARGO: "Corniel" Suit Transferred From E.D. to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The collective action entitled Corniel v. BJ'S Cargo Express
Corp., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-05693, was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-08126-ALC to the proceeding.

Santiago Corniel alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and
others similarly situated for some of their hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per work week at a time and a half rate of pay in
direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BJ's Cargo Express is a New York corporation.  The Company is in
the transportation of freight and cargo business.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, partners, officers or managers of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Lawrence Office Park
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Bldg. 2, Suite 220
          Lawrenceville, NY 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Proceedings Stayed in Direct Purchaser Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
All proceedings against Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. in the direct
purchaser putative class action are stayed pending the district
court's final approval of the Company's settlement, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended August 30, 2014.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more
of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that
had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and
have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others
who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  On February 28, 2014, the Court entered
an order granting preliminary approval of the Company's
previously-reported settlement of these cases, conditionally
certifying the class for settlement purposes and approving the
Notice Plan submitted by the parties.  The Court held a final
fairness hearing on the settlement on September 18, 2014, but has
not yet issued a ruling on the parties' motion for final approval.
All proceedings against the Company in the direct purchaser
putative class action are stayed pending the Court's final
approval of the Company's settlement.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Feb. 10-12 Hearing in Indirect Purchaser Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court will hold a hearing on February 10-12,
2015, on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29,
2014, for the quarterly period ended August 30, 2014.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more
of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that
had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and
have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others
who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The court granted with prejudice the
defendants' renewed motion to dismiss damages claims arising
outside the limitations period applicable to most causes of
action.  On February 10-12, 2015, the Court will hold a hearing on
the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: July 2015 Deadline to File Dispositive Motions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 30, 2014, that six of the cases in
which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been
consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed
Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The court granted with prejudice the defendants'
renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs' claims for
damages arising before September 24, 2004.  The parties have
completed nearly all fact discovery related to these cases and
expert analysis and proceedings are underway.  The deadline for
parties to file dispositive motions is July 2, 2015.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Finalizing Settlement Papers With Retailers
------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 30, 2014, that on May 6, 2014, the
Company agreed in principle to settle all claims brought by the
four plaintiffs in one of the non-class cases pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.; Roundy's Supermarkets,
Inc.; C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.; and H.J. Heinz Company, L.P. v.
Michael Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00510-GP.  The
parties are still in the process of finalizing their formal
settlement papers.  The terms of the settlement are confidential.
The Company is settling this case for an amount and on terms that
are not expected to have a material impact on the Company's
results of operations.


CANCUN MARKET: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Paniagua Rodriguez v. Cancun Market, Case No. 3:14-cv-
03634-D (N.D. Tex., October 9, 2014) seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, front and
back pay, attorney's fees, expert witness fees, taxable costs of
court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, racial discrimination, and
retaliation allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff.

Cancun Market is a domestic company authorized to do business, and
is doing business, in the state of Texas and the county of Dallas.
The Defendant can be served at its primary store located in
Farmers Branch, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent J. Bhatti, Esq.
          Ditty S. Bhatti, Esq.
          THE BHATTI LAW FIRM, PLLC
          14785 Preston Road, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Telephone: (214) 253-2533
          Facsimile: (214) 204-0033
          E-mail: vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com
                  Ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com


CENTRIC GROUP: Illegally Called Class Members' Phones, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Mogannam, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Centric Group L.L.C.; IC Solutions, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02372-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal., October 8, 2014) is brought for damages,
injunctive relief and other available remedies, resulting from the
Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on his telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

The Defendants are corporations headquartered in Saint Louis,
Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Dr. #725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866)633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


CHRYSLER GROUP: Removes "Tomassini" Class Suit to N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Tomassini v. Chrysler Group,
LLC, Case No. CA2014002230, was removed from the Supreme Court of
New York State, County of Broome, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01226-MAD-DEP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from contract dispute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elmer R. Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C.
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          Facsimile: (518) 770-1558
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          Peter J. Cambs, Sr., Esq.
          PARKER, WAICHMAN LAW FIRM
          27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, #103
          Naples, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000
          Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
          E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com
                  Pcambs@yourlawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alan J. Pope, Esq.
          POPE, SCHRADER LAW FIRM
          2 Court Street, 4th Floor
          P.O. Box 510
          Binghamton, NY 13902
          Telephone: (607) 584-4900
          Facsimile: (607) 584-4901
          E-mail: apope@psslawfirm.com


CNL WINGS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Gonzalez, Carlos Ivan Rubio, Erick Martinez, and Graciela
C. Martinez v. CNL Wings VII, Inc., CNL Wings VIII, Inc., CNL
Wings X, Inc., CNL Wings XI, Inc., CNL Wings XII, Inc., CNL Wings
XIV, Inc., and Charles M. Loflin, Case No. 5:14-cv-00886 (W.D.
Tex., October 9, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed to the
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees of the
Defendants.

The Corporate Defendants are Texas companies.  Charles M. Loflin
is an individual, who may be served at his principal place of
business in San Antonio, Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Javier N. Maldonado, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAVIER N. MALDONADO, PC
          8918 Tesoro Dr., Suite 575
          San Antonio, TX 78217
          Telephone: (210) 277-1603
          Facsimile: (210) 587-4001
          E-mail: jmaldonado.law@gmail.com


COMPASS GROUP: "Terrero" Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Terrero v. Compass Group USA,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04283, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-08129-JMF to the proceeding.

Cesar Terrero alleges that the Defendant has failed to pay him and
other similarly situated current and former employees all of the
overtime wages to which they were entitled under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Compass Group is a foreign corporation, incorporated in Delaware,
with a New York address for service of process.  Compass Group is
engaged in providing food services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Lawrence Office Park
          Building 2, Suite 220
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Craig R. Benson, Esq.
          Sarah Elyse Moss, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          900 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9600
          Facsimile: (718) 732-2369
          E-mail: cbenson@littler.com
                  smoss@littler.com


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Wallace" Discrimination Suit in Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy B. Wallace v. Education Management Corp. d/b/a Brown Mackie
College - San Antonio LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00884 (W.D. Tex.,
October 8, 2014) alleges that the Defendant intentionally
discriminated against the Plaintiff because of her sex in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Texas Labor
Code.

Education Management Corp., doing business as Brown Mackie College
- San Antonio LLC, is a Domestic Limited Liability Company within
the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Poncio, Esq.
          Thomas N. Cammack, III, Esq.
          PONCIO LAW OFFICES
          A Professional Corporation
          5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 109
          San Antonio, TX 78229-3550
          Telephone: (210) 212-7979
          Facsimile: (210) 212-5880
          E-mail: salaw@msn.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Anticipates Consolidation of Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended July 31, 2014, that the Company has been
named as a defendant, along with a competitor, in putative class
action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions.  The complaints,
filed on behalf of direct and indirect customers of the Company's
tank exchange business, reference the Federal Trade Commission's
administrative complaint.  The lawsuits allege that Ferrellgas and
a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in
barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to
accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs
to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.  The lawsuits seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the
putative class.

Ferrellgas anticipates that these lawsuits will be consolidated
into one case by a multidistrict litigation panel.  Ferrellgas
believes they have strong defenses to the claims and intend to
vigorously defend against them.  Ferrellgas does not believe loss
is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to these
putative class action lawsuits.

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") initiated an investigation
into certain practices related to the filling of portable propane
cylinders. On March 27, 2014, the FTC filed an administrative
complaint alleging that we and one of our competitors colluded in
2008 to persuade a customer to accept the cylinder fill reduction
from 17 pounds to 15 pounds.  The complaint does not seek monetary
remedies.

"We have filed an answer to the complaint and believes that the
FTC's claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the
claims. We does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time," the Company also said.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. is a growth-oriented publicly traded
Delaware limited partnership formed in 1994 and engaged in the
retail distribution of propane and midstream operations.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Prevailed in 10th Cir. Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended July 31, 2014, that the Company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court in Kansas. The complaint was the
subject of a motion to dismiss which was granted, in part, in
August 2011. The surviving claims allege breach of contract and
breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, both of
which allegedly arise from the existence of an oral contract for
continuous propane service. Ferrellgas believes the claims are
without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. The case has
not been certified for class treatment. Ferrellgas recently
prevailed on an appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
and the appellate court ordered the trial court to determine
whether the case must be arbitrated. Ferrellgas does not believe
loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to
this putative class action lawsuit.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. is a growth-oriented publicly traded
Delaware limited partnership formed in 1994 and engaged in the
retail distribution of propane and midstream operations.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Class Action Legal Fees Total $1.7MM in 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended July 31, 2014, that during fiscal 2014,
2013, 2012 and 2011, a class action lawsuit resulted in a
litigation accrual and related legal fees.  The Company said
litigation accrual and related legal fees associated with the
class action lawsuit total $1,749,000 in 2014 and $1,568,000 in
2013.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. is a growth-oriented publicly traded
Delaware limited partnership formed in 1994 and engaged in the
retail distribution of propane and midstream operations.


GREEN TREE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Carman, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01224-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla., October 8, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753-8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Max H. Story, Esq.
          COLLINS & STORY, P.A.
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758-5333
          E-mail: max@collinsstorylaw.com


HARVARD COLLECTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Lebovits, individually and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Harvard Collection Services Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
05903-PKC-RER (E.D.N.Y., October 8, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit in Northern District of Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
Cattaraugus County School Employees Federal Credit Union,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03244-CC (N.D. Ga.,
October 9, 2014) is brought for breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, Esq.
          W. PITTS CARR AND ASSOCIATES, PC
          Building 10
          4200 Northside Parkway, N.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 442-9000
          E-mail: aweatherby@wpcarr.com

               - and -

          Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED
          651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
          W. PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES, PC
          10 North Parkway Square
          4200 Northside Parkway, N.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 442-9000
          Facsimile: (404) 442-9700
          E-mail: pcarr@wpcarr.com


I.C. SYSTEM: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Betty J. Hay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00585-JES-CM (M.D.
Fla., October 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maria Alaimo, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334-3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
          E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com


INTERGROUP CORP: Partnership Paid Entire $525,000 Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Investors, a California limited partnership ("Justice" or
the "Partnership") paid the entire settlement of $525,000 during
the year ended June 30, 2014, The Intergroup Corporation said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 29, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2014.

In August 2012, two current and four former employees of the Hotel
commenced a putative wage and hour class action against the
Partnership. The Complaint alleged that the Partnership failed to
provide compliant meal periods, failed to authorize and permit
compliant rest periods, failed to pay all regular and overtime
wages due, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
and failed to pay all wages owed upon termination of employment.

In February 2013, the Partnership agreed to settle the class
action lawsuit for $525,000. The amount was accrued as of June 30,
2013 and is included as part of "Accounts payable and accrued
liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Prism Hotels L.P.
agreed to reimburse the Partnership for 50% of the total amount of
the settlement and pay up to $300,000 of legal fees and defense
costs incurred in defense of the lawsuit.

During fiscal 2013, the Partnership incurred legal costs of
$365,000 associated with the lawsuit, of which Prism agreed to pay
$300,000 in accordance with the agreement. The amount due to Prism
at June 30, 2013 for the management fee was applied against the
receivable for the reimbursement of the settlement and legal
costs. The Partnership insurance carrier awarded $225,000 in
insurance proceeds as a result of a claim related to the
settlement. Of the total proceeds, 50%, or $112,500, was allocated
to the Partnership and the remaining amount was allocated to
Prism. The insurance reimbursement awarded to the Partnership was
offset against the related legal expense included as part of
"General and administrative" expenses in the statements of income
and partners' accumulated deficit. During the year ended June 30,
2014 the Partnership paid the entire settlement of $525,000.

The InterGroup Corporation was organized to buy, develop, operate,
rehabilitate and dispose of real property of various types and
descriptions, and to engage in such other business and investment
activities as would benefit the Company and its shareholders.  As
of June 30, 2014, the Company owned approximately 80.9% of the
common shares of Santa Fe Financial Corporation ("Santa Fe"), a
public company (OTCBB: SFEF). Santa Fe's revenue is primarily
generated through its 68.8% owned subsidiary, Portsmouth Square,
Inc. ("Portsmouth"), a public company (OTCBB: PRSI). InterGroup
also directly owns approximately 12.9% of Portsmouth. Portsmouth's
primary business is conducted through its general and limited
partnership interest in Justice Investors, a California limited
partnership ("Justice" or the "Partnership"). Portsmouth has a 93%
limited partnership interest in Justice and is the sole general
partner.


LIBERTY SILVER: Seeks to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Silver Corp. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 29, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.

On September 12, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors (the "Liberty Silver Parties") were
named as defendants in a proposed securities class action lawsuit
filed against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have
collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm
allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese (the "Action," Case No. 9:13-
cv-80923-KLR, Stanaford v. Genovese et al.).  The action contains
various claims alleging violations of the United States Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and rules thereunder relating to anomalous
trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price
from August through October 2012. The plaintiff purported to bring
suit on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common shares from April 1, 2008, through and including
October 5, 2012.  An amended complaint was filed on September 27,
2013.

On January 22, 2014, the Court appointed Jerald Todd Stanaford and
Philip Hobel lead plaintiffs and approved Federman & Sherwood as
Lead Counsel and Menzer & Hill, PA as Liaison Counsel.  On March
24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.  On May 8, 2014, the Liberty Silver Parties
moved to dismiss the Complaint.  The Liberty Silver Parties intend
to vigorously defend the Action.

It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company
will incur any liability as a result of the Action, or to estimate
the damages, or the range of damages, if any, that the Company
might incur in connection with the Action.


LOWE'S HOME: Faces "Ingram-Fleming" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
April Ingram-Fleming, on behalf of herself and all similarly-
situated individuals v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, agent of Lowe's,
Case No. 8:14-cv-02569-SDM-MAP (M.D. Fla., October 9, 2014) is
brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Goodhue" Suit to Tennessee District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Goodhue v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-004251-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02784-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Gregory Goodhue alleges that he was injured by his
physician's off-label use of Medtronic and MSD's Infuse Bone
Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device.

Medtronic, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., is a
Tennessee corporation headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.  MSD is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Medtronic, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Joe Bubalo, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS, PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          E-mail: rtom@bakerdonelson.com


MODEL N INC: Removes Plymouth IPO-Related Suit to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Plymouth County Retirement System
v. Model N, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 530291, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-
cv-04516-LB to the proceeding.

The Action is a putative class action brought against Model N,
certain officers and directors of Model N, and certain
underwriters of Model N's March 20, 2013 initial public offering
on the NYSE stock exchange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 1. 1747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@csgrr.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  mstocker@labaton.com

Defendants Zack Rinat, Sujan Jain, James W. Breyer, Sarah Friar,
Mark Garrett, Charles J. Robel and Model N, Inc., are represented
by:

          Susan S. Muck, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
          E-mail: smuck@fenwick.com

               - and -

          Felix S. Lee, Esq.
          Michael Davis-Wilson, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          Silicon Valley Center
          801 California Street
          Mountain View, CA 94041
          Telephone: (650) 988-8500
          Facsimile: (650) 938-5200
          E-mail: flee@fenwick.com
                  mdaviswilson@fenwick.com


OCEAN STATE JOBBERS: "Scribner" Suit Transferred to Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Scribner v. Ocean State Jobbers,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-11633, was transferred from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).  The
Connecticut District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01486-
VLB to the proceeding.

The action is brought on behalf of all assistant store managers
employed by Ocean State for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ocean State Jobbers, Inc. is a corporation with its principal
office in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.  The Defendant, on its
own and through various affiliated corporations and limited
liability companies, owns and operates numerous Ocean State Job
Lot stores throughout New York and New England.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Sara Smolik, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  ssmolik@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          Margaret B. Ferron, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
                  mferron@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
          KELLEY/UUSTAL, PLC
          Courthouse Law Plaza
          700 SE 3rd Ave., Third Floor
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 522-6601
          Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
          E-mail: jml@kulaw.com


PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Faces Suit in California Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Scott Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-02359-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., October 8, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of willfully violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by causing unsolicited calls to be made to the Plaintiff's and
other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an
auto-dialer and artificial or pre-recorded or artificial voice
message.

Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC is a California corporation
headquartered in Roseville, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Dufour, Esq.
          SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP
          22440 Clarendon Street, Suite 200
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 591-4300
          Facsimile: (818) 591-4315
          E-mail: mdufour@swlegalgrp.com

               - and -

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Brian B. Kilpatrick, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          Galleria Tower I
          2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  brian@hughesellzey.com


PATIENT ACCOUNTING: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Pardo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Patient Accounting Service Center, LLC dba ARSTRAT,
Case No. 2:14-cv-07817 (C.D. Cal., October 8, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Tobacco-Related Cases Served Against RJR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that from the beginning
of the third quarter of 2014 through September 17, 2014, 11
tobacco-related cases, including one Engle Progeny case, were
served against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.

According to Reynolds American, on September 17, 2014, there were
176 cases pending against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees: 160 in the United States and 16 in Canada, as
compared with 165 total cases on September 30, 2013.

The U.S. case number does not include the approximately 564
individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a
consolidated action, 4,071 Engle Progeny cases, involving
approximately 5,172 individual plaintiffs, and 2,570 Broin II
cases (as hereinafter defined), pending in the United States
against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees.

Of the U.S. cases pending on September 17, 2014, 16 are pending in
federal court, 143 in state court and 1 in tribal court, primarily
in the following states: Maryland (28 cases); Florida (25 cases);
Missouri (18 cases); and New York (14 cases).


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 947 Engle Progeny Cases Pending in Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that as of September
17, 2014, 947 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court,
and 3,124 of them were pending in state court.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.

According to Reynolds American, the cases include approximately
5,172 plaintiffs. In addition, as of September 17, 2014, RJR
Tobacco was aware of 16 additional Engle Progeny cases that had
been filed but not served. One hundred nine Engle Progeny cases
have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2011
through September 17, 2014, and numerous state court trials are
scheduled for 2014.

In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class action brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers
allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145
billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006,
the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively
decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury
findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed
within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include
jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that
nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes
that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed
unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly
concealed unspecified information about the health risks of
smoking.

In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were
filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are
commonly referred to as "Engle Progeny" cases.

The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons,
including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary
dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of
judgment," referred to in Florida statutes as "proposals for
settlement," from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of
judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco's
right to recover attorneys' fees under Florida law in the event of
a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made
through court-ordered mediations.

In Engle Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the
proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has argued
that use of the Engle findings to establish individual elements of
progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a
violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the
Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected
that argument. In addition to this global due process argument,
RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as
appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other
things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the
Engle class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by
any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that
some or all claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation
or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the
smoker's own conduct.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 24 Engle Progeny Cases Became Final
------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that twenty-four Engle
Progeny cases have become final through September 17, 2014. These
cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco of $186.4
million ($140.1 million for compensatory and punitive damages and
$46.3 million for attorneys' fees and statutory interest). On
October 3, 2014, a payment of $11.9 million ($10 million for
compensatory and punitive damages and $1.9 million for attorneys'
fees and statutory interest) will be made in satisfaction of the
adverse judgment in the Crawford case.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Updates on Verdicts in Engle Progeny Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that the following
chart reflects verdicts in all individual Engle Progeny cases,
pending as of September 17, 2014, in which a verdict has been
returned against RJR Tobacco or Brown & Williamson, or both, and
has not been set aside on appeal. This chart does not include the
mistrials or verdicts returned in favor of RJR Tobacco or B&W, or
both:

  Plaintiff  RJR Tobacco   Compensatory
  Case        Allocation   Damages (as         Punitive
  Name          of Fault   adjusted)(1)        Damages
  -----------------------------------------------------
Cohen             33.3%    $3,300,000            --
Putney              30%            --            --
Buonomo           77.5%    $4,060,000            --
Webb                90%            --            --
Soffer              40%    $2,000,000            --
Ciccone             30%    $1,000,000            --
Hallgren            25%      $500,000        $750,000
Calloway            27%   $16,100,000     $17,250,000
Hiott               40%      $730,000            --
Hancock              5%          $700            --
Sikes               51%    $3,520,000      $2,000,000
James Smith         55%      $600,000         $20,000
Schlenther          50%    $5,030,000      $2,500,000
Ballard             55%    $5,000,000            --
Williams            85%    $4,250,000            --
Evers               60%    $1,938,000            --
Schoeff             75%    $7,875,000     $30,000,000
Marotta             58%    $3,480,000            --
Searcy              30%    $1,000,000      $1,670,000
Aycock            72.5%    $4,277,000            --
Graham              20%      $550,000            --
Starr-
Blundell           10%       $50,000            --
Odum                50%      $100,000            --
Skolnick            30%      $767,000            --
Thibault            70%    $1,750,000      $1,275,000
Grossman            75%   $15,350,000     $22,500,000
Gafney              33%    $1,914,000            --
Crawford            70%    $9,000,000      $1,000,000
Harford             18%       $59,000            --
Cheeley             50%    $1,500,000      $2,000,000
Goveia              35%      $297,500      $2,250,000
Clayton             10%       $60,000            --
Bowden              30%    $1,500,000            --
Burkhart            25%    $2,500,000      $1,250,000
Bakst               75%    $4,503,000     $14,000,000
Robinson          70.5%   $16,900,000 $23,600,000,000
Harris              15%      $239,000
Wilcox              70%    $4,900,000      $8,500,000
Irimi             14.5%      $453,000            --
Hubbird             50%    $3,000,000     $25,000,000
                 ------------------------------------
Totals                   $130,013,200 $23,731,965,000

Appeal Status

In the Cohen case, Punitive damages set aside; remanded for
partial new trial; notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida
Supreme Court pending; stayed pending resolution of Hess v. Philip
Morris USA Inc.

In the Putney case, reversed and remanded for further proceedings;
notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending;
stayed pending resolution of Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

In the Buonomo case, punitive damages set aside; remanded for new
trial; notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court
pending; stayed pending resolution of Hess v. Philip Morris USA
Inc.

In the Webb case, reversed and remanded for new trial on damages;
new trial scheduled for November 3, 2014

In the Soffer case, Pending -- Florida Supreme Court

In the Ciccone case, Pending -- Florida Supreme Court

In the Hallgren case, Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida
Supreme Court pending; stayed

In the Calloway case, Pending -- Fourth DCA

In the Hiott case, Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida
Supreme Court pending; stayed pending resolution of Hess v. Philip
Morris USA Inc.

In the Hancock case, Pending -- Fourth DCA

In the Sikes case, Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida
Supreme Court pending; stayed pending resolution of Hess v. Philip
Morris USA Inc.

In the James Smith case, Pending -- Eleventh Circuit

In the Schlenther case, Pending -- Second DCA

In the Ballard case, Pending -- Third DCA

In the Williams case, Third DCA affirmed; deadline to file notice
to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme
Court is October 20, 2014

In the Evers case, Punitive damages reversed; pending -- Second
DCA

In the Schoeff case, Pending -- Fourth DCA

In the Marotta case, Pending -- Fourth DCA

In the Searcy case, Pending -- Eleventh Circuit

In the Aycock case, Pending -- Eleventh Circuit

In the Graham case, Pending -- Eleventh Circuit

In the Starr-Blundell case, Pending -- First DCA

In the Odum case, Pending -- First DCA

In the Skolnick case, Pending -- Fourth DCA

In the Thibaul case, Pending -- First DCA

In the Grossman case, Pending -- Fourth DCA

In the Gafney case, Pending -- Fourth DCA

In the Crawford case, Third DCA affirmed; payment will be made
October 3, 2014

In the Harford case, Post-trial motions are pending(3)

In the Cheeley case, Pending -- Fourth DCA

In the Goveia case, Pending -- Fifth DCA

In the Clayton case, Pending -- First DCA

In the Bowden case, Pending -- First DCA

In the Burkhart case, Post-trial motions denied; deadline to file
notice of appeal is October 16, 2014

In the Bakst case, Post-trial motions denied; deadline to file
notice of appeal is October 14, 2014

In the Robinson case, Post-trial motions are pending(3)

In the Harris case, Post-trial motions are pending(3)

In the Wilcox case, Post-trial motions are pending(3)

In the Irimi case, Post-trial motions are pending(3)

In the Hubbird case, Post-trial motions are pending(3)

(1) Unless otherwise noted, compensatory damages in these cases
are adjusted to reflect the jury's allocation of comparative
fault. Punitive damages are not so adjusted. The amounts listed
above do not include attorneys' fees or statutory interest that
may apply to the judgments.

(2) The court did not apply comparative fault in the final
judgment.

(3) Should the pending post-trial motions be denied, RJR Tobacco
will likely file a notice of appeal with the appropriate appellate
court.

As of September 17, 2014, outstanding judgments in favor of the
Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been entered and remain outstanding
against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $130,013,200 in compensatory
damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $23,731,965,000 in
punitive damages, for a total of $23,861,978,200. Excluding the
Robinson case, where a jury awarded $16.9 million in compensatory
damages and $23.6 billion in punitive damages and where post-trial
motions are pending before the trial court, outstanding judgments
in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been entered and
remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco in the amount of
$113,113,200 in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the
amount of $131,965,000 in punitive damages, for a total of
$245,078,200. All of these verdicts are at various stages in the
appellate process. RJR Tobacco continues to believe that it has
valid defenses in these cases, including case-specific issues
beyond the due process issue discussed above. It is the policy of
RJR Tobacco and its affiliates to vigorously defend all smoking
and health claims, including in Engle Progeny cases.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in 3rd Qtr 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that in the third
quarter of 2014 (through September 17, 2014), nine Engle Progeny
cases in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant were tried:

   1. In Robinson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Michael
Johnson, Sr., to be 29.5% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 70.5% at
fault and awarded $16.9 million in compensatory damages and $23.6
billion in punitive damages.

   2. In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury allocated fault: (1)
for the survival claim as follows: decedent -- 60%, RJR Tobacco --
15%, and the remaining defendants (collectively) -- 25%; and (2)
for the wrongful death claim as follows: decedent -- 70%, RJR
Tobacco -- 10%, and the remaining defendants (collectively) --
20%. The jury awarded $400,000 in compensatory damages for the
wrongful death claim and $1.3 million in compensatory damages for
the survival claim. Punitive damages were not awarded.

   3. In Gore v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a
mistrial because the jury returned a potentially inconsistent
verdict. The jury found for the plaintiff on liability, but
awarded no compensatory damages and determined that the plaintiff
was entitled to punitive damages.

   4. In Wilcox v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Cleston
Wilcox, to be 30% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 70% at fault, and
awarded $7 million in compensatory damages and $8.5 million in
punitive damages.

   5. In Irimi v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Dale Moyer,
to be 70% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 14.5% at fault, and the
remaining defendants collectively to be 15.5% at fault, and
awarded approximately $3.1 million in compensatory damages.
Punitive damages were not awarded.

   6. In Hubbird v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, David
Ellsworth, to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault,
and awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in
punitive damages.

   7. In Cooper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared
a mistrial because the jury was unable to reach a verdict.

   8. In Baum v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

   9. In Ellis v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.

According to Reynolds American, trial schedules are subject to
change, and many cases are dismissed before trial. It is likely
that RJR Tobacco and other cigarette manufacturers will have an
increased number of tobacco-related trials in 2014. There are six
cases, exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of
September 17, 2014 through September 17, 2015, for RJR Tobacco or
its affiliates and indemnitees: one non-smoking and health case,
four individual smoking and health cases and one class action.
There are 58 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco and/or B&W
set for trial through September 17, 2015, but it is not known how
many of these cases will actually be tried.

From January 1, 2011 through September 17, 2014, 114 smoking and
health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which
RJR Tobacco or B&W were defendants were tried, including six
trials for cases where mistrials were declared in the original
proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and, in some
cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W and other defendants, were returned in 58
cases, including 16 mistrials, tried in Florida (55), Missouri (1)
and West Virginia (2). Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were
returned in 52 cases tried in Florida and one in New York. Three
cases in Florida were dismissed during trial.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 95 Individual Smoking and Health Cases Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that as of September
17, 2014, 95 individual cases were pending in the United States
against RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson, as its indemnitee, or
both. This category of cases includes smoking and health cases
alleging personal injury brought by or on behalf of individual
plaintiffs, but does not include the Broin II, Engle Progeny or
West Virginia IPIC cases.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.

According to Reynolds American, a total of 93 of the individual
cases are brought by or on behalf of individual smokers or their
survivors, while the remaining two cases are brought by or on
behalf of individuals or their survivors alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, referred
to as ETS.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Brief Due in "Izzarelli" Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
RJR Tobacco's brief was due on October 2, 2014, in the appeal in
the case Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds
American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 29, 2014.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.

According to Reynolds American, on May 26, 2010, the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 1999 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff sought to
recover damages for personal injuries that the plaintiff alleges
she sustained as a result of unsafe and unreasonably dangerous
cigarette products and for economic losses she sustained as a
result of unfair trade practices of the defendant. The jury found
RJR Tobacco to be 58% at fault and the plaintiff to be 42% at
fault, awarded $13.9 million in compensatory damages and found the
plaintiff to be entitled to punitive damages.

In December 2010, the court awarded the plaintiff $3.97 million in
punitive damages. Final judgment was entered in December 2010, in
the amount of $11.95 million. The court granted the plaintiff's
motion for offer of judgment interest, and awarded the plaintiff
$15.8 million for the period of December 6, 1999 up to and
including December 5, 2010, and approximately $4,000 per day
thereafter until an amended judgment was entered. The amended
judgment was entered in the amount of approximately $28.1 million
in March 2011.

RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal in September 2011, and the
plaintiff thereafter cross appealed with respect to the punitive
damages award. In September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit issued an opinion that certified the following
question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does Comment i to
section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a suit
premised on strict products liability against a cigarette
manufacturer based on evidence that the defendant purposefully
manufactured cigarettes to increase daily consumption without
regard to the resultant increase in exposure to carcinogens, but
in the absence of evidence of any adulteration or contamination?"
Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted a motion to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit to amend the certification order
to add a second question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does
Comment i to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts
preclude a claim under the [Connecticut Products Liability Act]
against a cigarette manufacturer for negligence (in the design of
its cigarette products)?"

The Second Circuit denied the plaintiff's motion. The Connecticut
Supreme Court accepted the certified question and denied the
plaintiff's request to amend the question with the same additional
question that the plaintiff proposed to the Second Circuit.

The plaintiff submitted her brief on July 31, 2014. RJR Tobacco's
brief is due on October 2, 2014. The Second Circuit has retained
jurisdiction over the parties' appeals and will decide the case
after the Connecticut Supreme Court has completed its proceedings.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Oral Argument in "Whitney" Appeal Held
---------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument was scheduled for October 14, 2014, in the appeal in
the case, Whitney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds American
Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on September 29, 2014.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.

According to Reynolds American, on June 19, 2013, in Whitney v. R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of
the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. The case was filed in
January 2011, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida. The
plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants'
products, she suffers from lung cancer and emphysema. Final
judgment was entered in July 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal to the First District Court of Appeal, and the defendants
filed a notice of cross appeal in August 2013. Oral argument is
scheduled for October 14, 2014.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Complete in West Virginia IPIC
----------------------------------------------------------
Briefing is complete in the West Virginia Individual Personal
Injury Cases, Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014.

In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases began
in 1999, in West Virginia state court, as a series of roughly
1,200 individual plaintiff cases making claims with respect to
cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris, Lorillard, RJR Tobacco,
B&W and The American Tobacco Company. The cases were consolidated
for a Phase I trial on various defense conduct issues, to be
followed in Phase II by individual trials of any claims left
standing. Over the years, approximately 600 individual plaintiff
claims were dismissed for failure to comply with the case
management order, leaving 564 individual cases pending as of April
2013.

On April 15, 2013, the Phase I jury trial began and ended with a
virtually complete defense verdict on May 15, 2013. The jury found
that cigarettes were not defectively designed, were not defective
due to a failure to warn prior to July 1, 1969, that defendants
were not negligent, did not breach warranties and did not engage
in conduct which would warrant punitive damages. The only claim
remaining after the verdict was the jury's finding that all
ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964
and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct.

The defendants believe that there are only 30 plaintiffs remaining
who arguably claim to have smoked a ventilated filter cigarette
during the relevant period. The court initially entered judgment
on the verdict identifying the 30 plaintiffs remaining, but
vacated those orders as premature (leaving to a later day the task
of identifying the plaintiffs who might be able to assert a
ventilated filter failure to instruct claim during the narrow
relevant period).

The court entered a new judgment in October 2013, dismissing all
claims lost by the plaintiffs and purporting to make those claims
and all of the jury rulings immediately subject to appeal.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals in November 2013. Briefing is complete.
The defendants reserved the right to challenge the ventilated
filter claim in the event any plaintiff pursues and succeeds on
such a claim.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 8 "Lights" Class Actions Pending at Sept. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that as of September
17, 2014, eight class-action cases were pending in the United
States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.

According to Reynolds American, in 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. overturned the
certification of a nation-wide class of persons whose claims
related to alleged addiction to tobacco products. Since this
ruling by the Fifth Circuit, most class-action suits have sought
certification of state-wide, rather than nation-wide, classes.
Class-action suits based on claims similar to those asserted in
Castano or claims that class members are at a greater risk of
injury or injured by the use of tobacco or exposure to ETS are
pending against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees in
state or federal courts in California, Illinois, Louisiana,
Missouri, and West Virginia.

The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term
"lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under
state law or violates the federal RICO statute. Such suits are
pending in state or federal courts in Illinois and Missouri.

Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost
recovery actions in the form of class actions.

Few smoker class-action complaints have been certified or, if
certified, have survived on appeal. Eighteen federal courts,
including two courts of appeals, and most state courts that have
considered the issue have rejected class certification in such
cases. Apart from the Castano case only two smoker class actions
have been certified by a federal court -- In re Simon (II)
Litigation, and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and ultimately decertified.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. 4 Trial in Sateriale Case
-------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled for November 4, 2014 in the case Sateriale v.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds American Inc. said in a
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September
29, 2014.

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.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Price v. PM" Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
A decision is pending in the appeal in the case Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.

According to Reynolds American, "lights" class-action cases are
pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W in Illinois (2) and Missouri
(2). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000
to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs
allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims
that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or
were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The
cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection
and related statutes.

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

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip
Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond
requirement.

On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
lower court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court
with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the
trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and for
entry of final judgment. The case was dismissed with prejudice the
same day.

In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from
judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good
v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal. The
trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in February 2009. In
March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court.

On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order,
concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for
relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court
dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The
appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely,
reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for
further proceedings. Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip
Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned the case to the
trial court for further proceedings. In December 2012, the trial
court denied the plaintiffs' petition for relief from the
judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois
Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District.

In April 2014, the appellate court reinstated the 2003 verdict. In
May 2014, Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to
the Illinois Supreme Court and a motion for supervisory order.
Philip Morris has requested the Illinois Supreme Court to direct
the Fifth Judicial District to vacate its April 2014 judgment and
to order the Fifth Judicial District to affirm the trial court's
denial of the plaintiff's petition for relief from the judgment,
or in the alternative, grant its petition for leave to appeal. A
decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. 19 Status Conference in "Turner" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for November 19, 2014, the case
Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds American Inc. said
in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 29, 2014.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.

According to Reynolds American, 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 mentioned above, 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 November
19, 2014.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Howard" v. B&W
-------------------------------------------------
There is currently no activity in the case Howard v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014.

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 mentioned above. 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.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015, in the case
Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds American Inc. said
in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 29, 2014.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR
Tobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003.
In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.  In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status
conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2 Status Conference in "Black" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015, in the case
Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Reynolds American Inc.
said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 29, 2014.

In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand,
which was granted in March 2006. In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status
conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is currently no activity in the case, Jones v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc., Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014.

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 RJR
Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by tobacco product users
and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri
consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants'
tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine.
The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the
Circuit Court in February 1999. There is currently no activity in
this case.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Only Bourassa Case Being Pursued at This Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that the following
seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including 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 Bourassa 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 plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised 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, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned 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 plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of
government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused
by the use of tobacco products.

   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 plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung disease resulting from
the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all individuals, including their estates, and their
dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes
manufactured by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits
and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care
benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

   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 plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleging his own addiction and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised 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 from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of
the opt-out period as set by the court, as well as restitution of
profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-
care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

   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 plaintiff, the heir to a
deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was addicted to and
suffered emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products, is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised 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, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the
defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.
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 plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleging his own addiction and heart disease resulting
from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised 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, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the
claim was filed. 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 plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised 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, as well as restitution
of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for
health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco
products.

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.
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 Inc.  Subject to a
reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco
and its current or former affiliates in these actions.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Indirect Purchasers Cases Dismissed at Sept 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 17, 2014, all of the federal and state court cases
on behalf of indirect purchasers had been dismissed, Reynolds
American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 29, 2014.

A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown &
Williamson, 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 17, 2014, all
of the federal and state court cases on behalf of indirect
purchasers had been dismissed.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs in "Smith" File Petition for Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the case Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.,
filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of the State of
Kansas, Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or
maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. In an
opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs' claims. On July
18, 2014, the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas affirmed the
grant of summary judgment. On August 18, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of the State of
Kansas.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Class Actions Filed Over Lorillard Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that in the third
quarter of 2014, 11 alleged class action lawsuits were filed in
the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware regarding RAI's
proposed acquisition of Lorillard, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that
Lorillard's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to
Lorillard's shareholders by approving the transaction with RAI and
that RAI and BAT allegedly aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the transaction with
Lorillard and seek the recovery of unspecified money damages.
Plaintiffs'counsel has indicated that, once RAI's proxy statement
is filed in connection with the proposed acquisition, they will
likely file one or more amended complaints. Plaintiffs' counsel in
several of the cases has moved to consolidate all 11 actions.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Defendant in Corwin v British American Tobacco
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that in the third
quarter of 2014, Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, an
alleged class action lawsuit, was filed in the Superior Court,
Guilford County, North Carolina against RAI and its Board of
Directors. The plaintiff alleges that RAI's Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to RAI's shareholders by agreeing to
the proposed sale of shares of RAI common stock to BAT in
connection with the proposed Lorillard acquisition, and to a
proposed technology sharing agreement with BAT. The plaintiff also
alleges that BAT breached its fiduciary duties to RAI's other
shareholders. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the transaction and
seeks the recovery of unspecified money damages. The plaintiff's
counsel has indicated that, once RAI's proxy statement is filed in
connection with the proposed acquisition, they will likely file an
amended complaint.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Named as Defendant in 6 Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2014, that as of September
17, 2014, American Snuff Co. was a defendant in six actions
brought by individual plaintiffs in West Virginia state court
seeking damages in connection with personal injuries allegedly
sustained as a result of the usage of American Snuff Co.'s
smokeless tobacco products. These actions are pending before the
same West Virginia court as the 564 consolidated individual smoker
cases against RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson, as RJR Tobacco's
indemnitee, or both. Pursuant to the court's December 3, 2001,
order, the smokeless tobacco claims and defendants remain severed.

Pursuant to a second amended complaint filed in September 2006,
American Snuff Co. is a defendant in Vassallo v. United States
Tobacco Company, pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court in Miami-
Dade County, Florida. The individual plaintiff alleges that he
sustained personal injuries, including addiction and cancer, as a
result of his use of smokeless tobacco products, allegedly
including products manufactured by American Snuff Co. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and consequential damages
in an amount greater than $15,000. There is no punitive damages
demand in this case, though the plaintiff retains the right to
seek leave of court to add such a demand later. Discovery is
underway. Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, trial is
anticipated to begin in the fourth quarter of 2015.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Stay Court Mandate Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to stay a court mandate pending the filing
of a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the
ERISA Litigation is pending, Reynolds American Inc. said in a
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September
29, 2014.

The updates were made as part of a BRIDGE CREDIT AGREEMENT dated
as of September 23, 2014, among REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., as
Borrower, The Lenders Party Hereto and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent, CITIBANK, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Bookrunners.

According to Reynolds American, in May 2002, in Tatum v. The
R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company Capital Investment Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed
a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR
Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension
Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about
which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by
RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group
Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby
separating NGH's tobacco business and food business. As part of
the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities
had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate
tobacco and food businesses.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the
defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in
the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as
Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan
approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts
that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that
eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on
January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the
defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after
January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion
was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff
requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.

In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007. The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008. The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached.

In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed
motions for summary judgment, and in January 2009, the defendants
filed a motion to decertify the class. A second mediation occurred
in June 2009, but again no resolution of the case was reached. The
district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the
motion to decertify the class.

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

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice. On March 8, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Oral argument occurred on
March 18, 2014.

On August 4, 2014, a divided panel reversed the district court's
judgment in part. Judge Motz, writing for the majority and joined
by Judge Diaz, held that the district court applied the wrong
standard when it held that the defendants did not cause any loss
to the plan. Judge Wilkinson dissented, arguing that the district
court applied the correct causation standard. The defendants
petitioned the court for rehearing en banc on August 18, 2014,
which the court denied on September 2, 2014.

On September 8, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to stay the
court's mandate pending the filing of a petition for certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court. That motion is currently pending.


SALVATORE'S CORP: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Anguisaca, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Salvatore's Corp. d/b/a Coppola's Restaurant
East and Salvatore Coppola, Case No. 1:14-cv-08123-KBF (S.D.N.Y.,
October 8, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          Facsimile: (212) 563-9870
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


SB SOUTHERN: "Roberts" Suit Transferred From W.D. to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Roberts v. S.B. Southern Welding,
L.L.C., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00327, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas).  The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03617-B to
the proceeding.

Plaintiff Jack Roberts accuses the Defendants of requiring him to
work more than 40 hours in a workweek as a welder.  He contends
that the Defendants misclassified him as an independent contractor
and was never paid overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

S.B. Southern Welding, L.L.C. is a domestic for-profit limited
liability company headquartered in Waxahachie, Texas, and does
business under the trade name Southern Welding and Millwrights.
Shane Boston is the owner and president of the Company.  The
Defendants provide welding services throughout Texas and the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: Gassaad@kennedyhodges.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark A. Shank, Esq.
          Rachel D Ziolkowski, Esq.
          GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP
          1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 855-6846
          Facsimile: (214) 855-6808
          E-mail: Mshank@ghjhlaw.com
                  rziolkowski@ghjhlaw.com


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Accused of Refusing to Accept Resignations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Kennedy, Eduardo Berumen, Griselda Moran, and Magi
Sahagian, for Themselves and the Class They Seek to Represent v.
Service Employees International Union, Local 99; Los Angeles
Unified School District; and Megan K. Reilly, Chief Financial
Officer of the Los Angeles Unified School District, Case No. 2:14-
cv-07855 (C.D. Cal., October 9, 2014) arises under the Civil
Rights Act of 1871 to redress the deprivation of the rights,
privileges, and immunities secured to the Plaintiffs and the class
members they seek to represent by the Constitution of the United
States, specifically the First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto.

The Plaintiffs challenge Local 99's refusal to accept their
resignations and requests to pay only the reduced agency fee
amount that does not include political, ideological, and other
non-chargeable expenses, and the Defendants' alleged continued
collection of non-chargeable dues and fees from the Plaintiffs,
despite their resignations from Local 99 membership and their
objections to paying for Local 99's political, ideological, and
non-chargeable activities.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Service Employees
International Union, Local 99, is an "employee organization"
pursuant to the California Government Code.  Los Angeles Unified
School District is a "public school employer" or "employer."  The
District pays the wages of its employees, including the Plaintiffs
and the class members.  Megan K. Reilly is the District's Chief
Financial Officer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas Myers, Esq.
          SMITH & MYERS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 613-2380
          Facsimile: (213) 613-2395
          E-mail: myers@smithmyerslaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan J. McGrath, Esq.
          Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
          8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
          Springfield, VA 22151
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          Facsimile: (703) 321-9319
          E-mail: njm@nrtw.org
                  mlc@nrtw.org


SOUTH CAROLINA, USA: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
T M, by and through her guardian ad litem, Jane Doe, and on behalf
of similarly situated persons v. Nikki Haley, in her official
capacity as Governor of South Carolina; and Amber Gillum, in her
official capacity as Acting Director of the South Carolina
Department of Social Services, SCDSS, Case No. 3:14-cv-03933-TLW
(D.S.C., October 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Civil Rights
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah J. Butcher, Esq.
          Robert J. Butcher, Esq.
          CAMDEN LAW FIRM
          PO Box 610
          Camden, SC 29021
          Telephone: (803) 432-7599
          E-mail: dbutcher@camdensc-law.com
                  rjbutcher@camdensc-law.com


SPOONFUL MANAGEMENT: Removes "Gonzalez" Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Gonzalez v. Spoonful Management
Miami, LLC, Case No. 14-23659 CA 01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23734-PCH to the
proceeding.

The Complaint states that the nature of the action is a minimum
wage violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The action seeks
to recover money damages based on the alleged violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roderick Victor Hannah, Esq.
          RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A.
          4018 Sheridan Street
          Hollywood, FL 33021-3536
          Telephone: (954) 362-3800
          Facsimile: (954) 362-3779
          E-mail: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kimberly A. Gilmour, Esq.
          KIMBERLY A. GILMOUR, P.A.
          4179 Davie Road, Suite 101
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 584-6460
          Facsimile: (954) 584-3552
          E-mail: gilmourlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Paul E. Wagner, Esq.
          STOKES, WAGNER, HUNT, MARETZ & TERRELL
          903 Hanshaw Road
          Ithaca, NY 14850
          Telephone: (607) 257-5165
          E-mail: pwagner@stokeswagner.com


SWF OPERATIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Kohler, o/b/o herself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. SWF Operations, LLC d/b/a Domino's Pizza, and
Domino's Pizza, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-02568-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla.,
October 9, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


TRG CUSTOMER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Andrews, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TRG Customer Solutions, Inc. d/b/a IBEX Global
Solutions, Case No. 1:14-cv-00135 (M.D. Tenn., October 9, 2014)
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, costs and attorney's fees.

TRG Customer Solutions is a Delaware Corporation doing business in
the state of Tennessee, with its principal office in Washington,
D.C.  IBEX Global Solutions is a trade name for TRG Customer
Solutions.  TRG is a privately held company that operates 18 call
centers across five countries, including the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Scott P. Tift, Esq.
          Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  stift@barrettjohnston.com
                  shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          John L. Mays, Esq.
          Mike Walker, Esq.
          MAYS & KERR LLC
          235 Peachtree Street NE
          North Tower, Suite 202
          Telephone: (404) 410-7998
          Facsimile: (404) 855-4066
          E-mail: mike@maysandkerr.com
                  john@maysandkerr.com


WALGREEN CO: Faces "Minter" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Minter, Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly
Situated v. Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens, Case No. 1:14-cv-03251-
ODE (N.D. Ga., October 9, 2014) alleges fraud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Benjamin Finley, Esq.
          MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
          Building 14, Suite 230
          3535 Piedmont Road
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 320-9979
          Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
          E-mail: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com
                  mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com


                              *********

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.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. 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  * * *