A class-action lawsuit against Airbus and Northrop Grumman has been filed in the US by attorneys acting on behalf of passengers and crew injured in a serious incident involving a Qantas Airbus A330-300 in 2008.

The lawsuit is being led by a US law firm following contact from Australian law firms which will represent passengers and crew injured when A330 VH-QPA plunged over 1000ft in two uncommanded dives while on a flight from Singapore to Perth on October 7 2008, forcing the crew to make a mayday call and an emergency landing at Learmonth. The latest interim report from the ATSB suggests that the uncommanded dives may have been caused by erroneous data inputs from a faulty air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU), which was manufactured by Northrop Grumman.

Airbus has already moved an application to have the case heard in Australia rather than the US, with some commentators noting that Australian laws would not allow people to claim the same level of compensation as in the US. Currently, it appears that the trial will be heard in the US.

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. today announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of China-Biotics, Inc. during the period between July 10, 2008 and August 30, 2010 (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws.

To join the China-Biotics class action, visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com, or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against China-Biotics and certain of its present and former officers and directors for making material misstatements and omissions about the Company's true financial condition. According to the Complaint, during the Class Period Defendants misled investors about the quality, nature, and quantity of China-Biotics' purported retail outlets and stores. The Complaint also alleges that China-Biotics' fiscal 2008 financial statements filed with the SEC are materially false because the Company's fiscal 2008 financial statements filed with Chinese authorities reported merely a fraction of the cash, revenue and income set forth in the Company's 2008 financial statements with the SEC. The Complaint asserts that when this adverse information began to enter the market, the price of China-Biotics securities dropped, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 16, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com. You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.

Georgia's top court has ruled in favor of a former Atlanta police officer who sought immunity after being charged with murder in a shooting of a 19-year-old who was killed while the officer was investigating a report of a vehicle break-in.

The state Supreme Court on Monday upheld by a 6-1 decision a lower court ruling in favor of former officer Raymond Bunn, who claimed he was acting in self-defense when he shot 19-year-old Corey Ward in a parking lot in 2002.

Bunn contended that Ward was driving the SUV straight at him when Bunn shot at the window, hitting Ward twice in the left side of his head.

Prosecutors said Bunn was not directly in front of the vehicle, which belonged to Ward's mother, when he fired.

The Supreme Court majority ruled that the preponderance of evidence favored Bunn's story, despite conflicting evidence.

The Connecticut judge presiding at the trial of a man charged in a deadly home invasion remains hospitalized, but a hospital spokesman says his condition has been upgraded to good from fair.

Yale-New Haven Hospital spokesman Mark D'Antonio told The Associated Press that Judge Jon Blue remained at the hospital Monday morning. D'Antonio would not disclose Blue's ailment and says it's not clear when the judge will be discharged.

The trial of Steven Hayes began last week and was supposed to resume Monday morning in New Haven Superior Court. It has been postponed until Wednesday.

Hayes and another man are charged in the killings of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her 11- and 17-year-old daughters at their Cheshire home in 2007. They face the possibility of the death penalty if convicted.

The parties in a slow-moving 2008 class action suit in St. Clair County against Target are moving forward again.

A case management conference on sept. 8 saw the first action in the suit since last year.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young signed an order giving the parties in the case 30 days to submit a briefing schedule to him on the issue of class certification in the suit led by led plaintiff Brian Buehlhorn.

If the parties can't agree on that schedule, Young will take up the matter Oct. 20 at 9:30 a.m.

Buehlhorn is leading one of several proposed class actions filed against Target and other retailers over the effectiveness of their immune system supplements.

All of the suits were filed by the same team of attorneys including Paul Weiss of Chicago and Richard Burke of St. Louis.

In his suit, Buehlhorn claims that Target's Immunity Supplement does not boost the immune system as claimed.

While a class has yet to be certified in the case, the plaintiff successfully added claims from Minnesota, California and Florida last year.

There were no filings in the case after October of last year until the Sept. 8 order.

The suit seeks damages not to exceed $75,000 per individual class member.

The defendant is represented by Robert Bassett and others.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of SearchMedia Holdings Limited between April 1, 2009 and August 20, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Complaint").

The Complaint names SearchMedia and certain of the Company's current and former executive officers and directors as defendants. Ideation was a blank check company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware on June 1, 2007, and formed for the purpose of acquiring, through a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other similar business combination, one or more businesses. On April 1, 2009, the Company announced an agreement to purchase SearchMedia International Limited ("SMIL"), a purported nationwide multi-platform media company in China. On October 30, 2009, Ideation completed the acquisition of SMIL (the "Merger") and changed its name to SearchMedia.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and/or omitted material facts, in the joint proxy statement and prospectus (the "Joint Proxy/Prospectus") disseminated regarding the Merger, as well as in other public statements issued during the Class Period related to the Merger and SMIL. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about SearchMedia's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SMIL was improperly recognizing revenue; (2) certain of SMIL's accounts receivable related to sales generated primarily in the in-elevator business were uncollectible, (3) SMIL's financial results during the Class Period were materially overstated; (4) SMIL's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (5) SMIL lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) as a result of the above, SMIL's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 20, 2010, SearchMedia announced that the historical financial statements of SMIL for the 2007 and 2008 fiscal years would have to be restated and that the financial statements from these periods can no longer be relied upon. SearchMedia informed investors that it estimated that SMIL's revenue in 2007 and 2008 had been overstated by approximately $6 million and $25 million, respectively.

As a result of this news, SearchMedia's stock plummeted almost 23% to close as $2.62 per share on August 20, 2010. The Company's stock continued its slide to close at $0.92 per share on August 23, 2010 or approximately another 35% down.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 15, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or via our website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/SearchMediaHoldingsLimited-IDI. 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 proposed 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.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

SOURCE: Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire
Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director
888-969-4242
302-295-5310
Fax: 302-654-9430
info@rigrodskylong.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of CVB Financial Corp. common stock during the period between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010 (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from August 23, 2010. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Dave Walton of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cvb/. Any member of the putative 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.

The complaint charges CVB and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CVB is a financial services company and the bank holding company for Citizens Business Bank.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results and engaged in improper behavior that harmed CVB's investors by failing to disclose the extent of seriously delinquent commercial real estate loans and by failing to adequately and timely record losses for its impaired loans, causing its financial statements to be materially false. As a result of defendants' false statements, CVB's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $11.46 per share on April 22, 2010. The top officers and directors of CVB benefited, as the Company's purportedly favorable financial results contributed to the compensation paid to the top officers.

Then, on August 9, 2010, after the market closed, CVB filed its Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") for the second quarter of 2010, revealing that on July 26, 2010, the Company had received a subpoena from the SEC requesting information about the Company's loan underwriting guidelines and its allowance for credit losses. The SEC was also seeking information about CVB's methodology for grading loans and how it calculates provisions for loan losses. On this news, CVB's stock fell $2.30 per share to close at $8.00 per share on August 10, 2010 -- a one-day decline of over 22% and a 30% decline from the stock's Class Period high.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) defendants failed to properly account for CVB's commercial real estate loans, failing to reflect impairment in the loans; (b) CVB had not adequately reserved for loan losses such that its financial statements were presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (c) defendants failed to maintain proper internal controls related to CVB's accounting for its loan loss reserves.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of CVB common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.

SOURCE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Dave Walton, 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
djr@rgrdlaw.com