The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Life Partners Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: LPHI) ("Life Partners" or the "Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired Life Partners' securities between May 29, 2007 and January 19, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Life Partners and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Life Partners is a specialty financial services company and the parent company of Life Partners, Inc. ("LPI").  LPI is engaged in the secondary market for life insurance known generally as "life settlements."  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:  (1) that the Company had routinely used unrealistic life expectancy data that produced inaccurately short life expectancy reports, which were subsequently used to sell life settlement policies to investors; (2) that the Company had purposely concealed the historical rate in which individuals insured by life settlement policies sold by Life Partners had lived past the life expectancy rates previously provided to investors, such that the Company's investors were unable to assess the accuracy or reliability of such data; (3) that by underestimating the life expectancy data to investors, the Company was able to charge substantially larger fees when brokering life settlement policies; (4) that the Company's revenues had been significantly increased through the employment of such business practices; (5) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements were false and misleading at all relevant times; (6) that such business practices, when they were discovered, would initiate an investigation by the federal authorities into the Company's business practices; (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On December 21, 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article questioning the Company's life-expectancy estimates and business practices.  The article followed a comprehensive investigation into how the Company sold life settlement policies to investors.  In particular, the article stated that Life Partners "has made large fees from its life-insurance transactions while often significantly underestimating the life expectancies of people whose policies its customers invest in."  Then on January 20, 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported, and the Company subsequently confirmed, that the SEC was investigating Life Partners. The article reported that "As part of its probe, the SEC's enforcement division has been seeking experts to analyze the way Life Partners has estimated the life expectancies of the insured individuals."  On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.58 per share, or over 17 percent, to close on January 20, 2011 at $12.46 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  The Company's stock continued to decline as additional news about Life Partners was subsequently reported.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.btkmc.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than April 4, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. 

CONTACT:

Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 

Darren J. Check, Esq. 

D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. 

280 King of Prussia Road 

Radnor, PA 19087 

1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 

Or by e-mail at info@btkmc.com

Toshiba Corp.'s U.S. business was hit with a $100 million lawsuit Monday for alleged "systemic, companywide" discrimination against female staff over pay and promotions, a law firm representing one of the plaintiffs said.

The class action employment lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims that Toshiba America Nuclear Energy Corp. and its parent, Toshiba America Inc., engage in systemic gender discrimination against their female employees.

The lawsuit was brought by Elaine Cyphers, a human resources manager at Toshiba America Nuclear Energy who joined the company in June 2008. The suit was filed on behalf of a class of female Toshiba employees in the U.S., according to the firm.

It alleged that the defendants pay female employees less than their male counterparts, deny them promotions to better and higher-paying positions, limit their employment opportunities to lower and less-desirable job classifications, and expose them to different treatment as employees.

The plaintiff for the case, Patrick Hendricks, claims that the "phantom data" over-charges were also found by an independent consulting company, which the complaint says "purchased an iPhone from an AT&T store, immediately disabled all push notifications and location services, confirmed that no email account was configured on the phone, closed all applications, and let the phone sit untouched for ten days."

Hendricks' complaint states that the consulting firm found that nearly 2.3 megabytes of data were charged against the new account for that 10 day period. The suit says that this is "like a rigged gas pump charging you when you never even pulled your car into the station." The complaint says that a 2 month study conducted by the consulting firm showed that AT&T typically over charged for data by 7 to 14 percent, and sometimes as much as by 300 percent. The study also claims that the actual data sessions are not posted in a timely manner, often leading to data use near the end of a billing cycle being applied to the next month.

The number of  class action securities lawsuits filed in U.S. courts rose in the past six months and there was a big spike last year in litigation over merger disclosures, according to a study released on Thursday.

Between July and December there were 104 federal securities class action lawsuits filed in federal courts, up from 72 filed in the first six months of 2010, according to a study by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research.

The total number of lawsuits ticked up to 176 from 168 in 2009, although last year's filings were still below the annual average of 195 since 1997.

One area with a big increase were lawsuits filed over the lack of disclosure relating to a merger, which rose to 40 from seven in 2009.

"The sharp increase in federal litigation alleging disclosure violations in M&A transactions suggests that plaintiff lawyers are scrambling for new business as traditional fraud cases seem to be on the decline," said Joseph Grundfest, the director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.

He attributed the spike to a strategy by plaintiffs lawyers looking for a way to exert control over merger-related lawsuits, which are usually filed in state courts.

Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT) announced today that they have added staff in response to unprecedented growth.  FRT, a technology-based services firm and member of the Cross Country Group, focuses on helping institutional investors identify and file claims in order to collect funds made available in securities class action filings. 

Over 1,300 such cases have been settled, resulting in over $60 billion in funds since 1995.  However, the complex process of filing claims has led to less than 35% of settlement funds being recovered.  FRT creates value by working on behalf of institutional investors to ensure all such recoveries are realized.

Founded in 2008, FRT is a unique group characterized by individuals with years of experience servicing large institutional investors.  Through their proprietary technology and comprehensive service processes, they have grown into a respected industry leader and continue to seek out individuals that bring exceptional skills.

"Our new hires bring distinctive capabilities that will enable us to further accelerate our growth and enhance our delivery capabilities," said David Bedard, President of FRT. "In 2011, I expect our expanded team will continue our tradition of outperforming all industry benchmarks and achieving the highest possible levels of customer satisfaction."

Christopher Doggett recently joined the firm as Executive Vice President to lead FRT's business development efforts and advance the company's growth strategy. Chris joins FRT from Sophos, a global software firm, where he was a Vice President, and worldwide leader for the firm's partner sales and marketing programs, infrastructure and strategy.

Since the beginning of the third quarter of 2010, the firm has added new employees in all functional areas, including three senior sales professionals, a senior software engineer and a management associate.  These additions were made to ensure leadership in a rapidly evolving industry.

About Financial Recovery Technologies

Financial Recovery Technologies is a technology-based services firm that helps institutional investors identify, file claims and collect funds made available in securities class action filings. Offering the most comprehensive range of securities class action filing services available, the firm excels by providing best-in-class eligibility analysis, disbursement auditing and client reporting, and by delivering the highest level of accuracy, accountability and transparency available. For more information, please visit www.frtservices.com.

About The Cross Country Group

Headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and privately held, The Cross Country Group (CCG) and its member companies provide best-in-class technology-enabled service programs across a broad spectrum of industries, including automotive, insurance, financial services. CCG's companies serve hundreds of corporate clients and their 75 million customers each year.  For more information, visit www.crosscountrygroup.com.

Microsoft is facing a  class action lawsuit in Italy over how difficult it is making getting a refund for copies of Windows that are bundled with new PCs. Filed in Milan by the Associazione per i Diritti degli Utenti e Consumatori (ADUC), the lawsuit (statement) aims to have Microsoft make changes to its end user license agreement (EULA) that assumes users agree to it by using the software when first turning on their PCs.

Those who opt to replace the software with another OS such as Linux are forced to try and get a refund from the hardware vendor rather than Microsoft itself, a process that's proven hard before.

The group is a consumer watchdog and believes Microsoft is being directly anti-competitive. It's "using its strong position in the market to promote their products in an unlawful manner, to the detriment of users and competition," it said.

LexisNexis has been charging litigants "unconscionable" rates to file online documents in Texas federal courts, creating a poll tax-like situation that creates an unconstitutional barrier to open courts, a class action claims in Bexar County Court. The company, and its Netherlands-based parent, Reed Elsevier, faces similar lawsuits in Georgia and Texas federal court.

Lead plaintiff Karen McPeters says she was affected by the LexisNexis' deceptive practices when the discrimination case she filed against Montgomery County, Texas, was transferred to that county's court, where electronic filing is mandatory, in September 2007.

LexisNexis unlawfully conceals that it charges "nearly $16 for every piece of paper filed" online in Montgomery County District Court, according to the complaint.
    "