The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of TeleNav, Inc.pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its May 13, 2010 initial public offering ("IPO").

The Complaint charges that TeleNav and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, "Registration Statement") failed to disclose the following: (i) TeleNav would soon be renegotiating its contract to provide Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint"), its largest customer, with its Sprint Navigation application, which would result in lower revenues; (ii) the unwillingness of Sprint to continue with the same contract terms beyond December 31, 2010 would have negative implications for TeleNav's other wireless relationships; and (iii) adverse changes to the Sprint relationship would cause TeleNav's results to trend adversely compared to the trends included in the Registration Statement.

On July 29, 2010, TeleNav disclosed that it had started negotiations regarding contract roll-over with Sprint, and if successful, the contract roll-over would probably lead to an aggregate reduction in revenue from its largest customer. On this news, TeleNav's stock fell $3.47, to close at $5.44 per share on July 30, 2010.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than November 1, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.

While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/telenav/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800) 797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com.

CONTACT:
Nancy A. Kulesa or Wayne Boulton
(800) 797-5499
www.izardnobel.comEmail Contact

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Almost Family, Inc. between August 5, 2008 and June 30, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period).

The Complaint alleges that Almost Family and certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding its financial results and compliance with applicable laws relating to Medicare reimbursement. As a direct result of Defendants' false statements, Almost Family's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and dropped substantially after the truth was revealed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased shares of Almost Family common stock from August 5, 2008 through June 30, 2010. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation.

If you purchased the common stock of Almost Family from August 5, 2008 through June 30, 2010, you may move the court no later than 60 days after August 3, 2010, and request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, or other attorneys, to serve as your counsel in this action.

The firm's reputation for excellence has repeatedly been recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total in the billions of dollars.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ntrs) announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Northern Trust Corporation common stock during the period between October 17, 2007 and October 20, 2009 (the "Class Period").

For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ntrs.

Northern Trust is a financial holding company that provides asset servicing, fund administration, investment management, banking and fiduciary solutions for corporations, institutions and affluent individuals worldwide. 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 Northern Trust's investors by failing to disclose the extent of its seriously delinquent commercial real estate loans and the true nature and risks associated with its once highly profitable securities lending program. As a result of defendants' false statements, Northern Trust's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Additionally and as a result of this, Company insiders sold over 1.5 million shares of their Northern Trust stock for proceeds of over $106.5 million.

Then, on October 21, 2009, before the market opened, Northern Trust reported its third quarter 2009 earnings results, announcing third quarter results that fell short of expectations due in part to a serious decline in the Company's securities lending program and to continuing pressure from its non-performing loans. On this news, Northern Trust's stock fell $3.29 per share to close at $54.16 per share on October 21, 2009.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 25, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. 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. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint against Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.and certain of the Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing Acura common stock during the period beginning February 21, 2006 and ending April 22, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period'').

If you purchased Acura common stock during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. Any member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537 or visit the Scott+Scott website, http://www.scott-scott.com) for more information. There is no cost or fee to you.

Acura engages in the research, development, and manufacture of pharmaceutical product candidates utilizing Acura's proprietary "Aversion Technology" and other technologies that purportedly provide abuse deterrent features to orally-administered pharmaceutical drug products containing abusable active ingredients, such as tranquillizers, stimulants, sedatives, decongestants, and various other opioid analgesics.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Acura and certain of its officers and directors concealed material adverse facts about the Company's lead product candidate, Acurox, an orally administered immediate release tablet containing oxycodone as its active ingredient and niacin as an oral abuse-deterrent. After repeated glowing announcements by Acura to its investors touting the strength of the clinical trials of Acurox and the drug's potential for obtaining FDA approval, and thus commercial viability, the market was stunned when, on April 20, 2010, the FDA posted, on its website, briefing materials for the April 22, 2010 meeting to consider the New Drug Application of Acurox advising that: Acura's Aversion Technology was nowhere near effective enough to warrant approval, that the Company's clinical data was defective, that its clinical studies were not properly designed, that the Company had wholly ignored specific directives from FDA over the past four years as to specific clinical trials and evidence Acura had to demonstrate, and that that no evidence had ever been presented to the FDA that the niacin additive discouraged abusers from abusing oxycodone.

On this news, Acura's stock price declined 42.5% in one day, to close at $6.25 in afterhours trading. On April 22, 2010, the FDA Joint Panel voted 19-1 against approving Acurox. On the same day, it was reported that the FDA had been prodding Acura to demonstrate the deterrent efficacy of niacin since at least May 2009. As a result of these disclosures, Acura's stock price declined 39%, to $3.20 per share, in the pre-market trading on April 23, 2010.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com

Investors that have purchased leveraged or inverse ETFs through a brokerage account or managed account offered by Merrill Lynch, a subsidiary of Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (NYSE:MS), Wells Fargo Advisors (NYSE:WFC), Ameriprise Financial (NYSE:AMP), UBS (NYSE:UBS), LPL Financial, Raymond James (NYSE:RJF), Edward Jones, or other brokerage firms and have sustained losses should contact the attorneys at the Securities Arbitration Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. to determine if they have a claim for a recovery of losses.

Leveraged and inverse ETFs can be volatile and investors may have realized or unrealized losses in the following ETFs year to date, including but not limited to:

For a free case evaluation or to discuss any other investment losses, please contact the Securities Arbitration Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A., at 888-923-9223, or visit us on the web at www.suemyadvisor.com.

The law firm of Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC, which has significant experience in class actions, announced today that a class action has been filed against Almost Family Inc. ("Almost Family" or the "Company") for potential violations of state and federal law. The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of stock during the period of November 4, 2009 -- June 30, 2010 (the "Class Period").

Almost Family, together with its subsidiaries, provides home health services in the United States, operating through two segments, Visiting Nurse and Personal Care.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations and its business and financial results and outlook. Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that: (i) the Company was deliberately increasing the number of unnecessary home therapy visits in order to receive increased Medicare reimbursements; and (ii) as a result of defendants' conduct, the Company's reported sales and earnings were materially inflated. As a direct result of defendants' false statements, Almost Family's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $43.96 per shares on April 29, 2010.

On April 26, 2010, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") reported that certain home health providers intentionally increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients to coincide with higher reimbursement rates through Medicare. According to the WSJ article, the percentage of Almost Family patients receiving 10 visits dropped by 39% from 2007 to 2008, when the 10 visit reimbursement bonus was eliminated from Medicare in January 2008.

As a result of the WSJ article, the Company has come under intense scrutiny, including an inquiry by the United States Senate Finance Committee. On July 1, 2010, Almost Family announced that it had been notified that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had launched a formal investigation of the Company. Almost Family also announced that it had received a subpoena from the SEC seeking documents related to the Company's "home health care services and operations, including reimbursements under the Medicare home health prospective payment system, since January 1, 2000." As a result of this negative news, Almost Family's common stock fell $3.88 per share or 11.11%, on July 1, 2010, on high volume.

If you purchased shares of Almost Family during the Class Period, you have until October 4, 2010 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. If you would like more information about your shareholder rights, contact attorneys Melinda Nenning or Elizabeth Hutton for further information without any obligation or cost to you at (513) 345-8181, Ext. 3095, or by email at mnenning@statmanharris.com or ehutton@statmanharris.com.

Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC has offices in Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; Dayton, Ohio; and Sarasota, Florida. www.statmanharris.com

Google never knew that it will actually have to pay a heavy price for its free to use social network - Google Buzz. As per AFP, Google has agreed to pay $8.5 million as settlement of a privacy lawsuit over Google Buzz according to court documents. Eva Hibnick, a 24-year old Florida resident and Harvard Law School student, haa filed a class action lawsuit against Google Buzz for sharing personal data without user content. Not only that, the California based search giant is asked to make more efforts to educate users about Google Buzz's potential impact of privacy.

Google Buzz social network was in troubled waters after Private Group complained against the privacy issues with the service. However, Google quickly worked and fixed the issue while the service continued to receive lukewarm response from Gmail users. Post that, numerous changes have been implemented in the service but a class action law suit was already filed against Buzz.  

Seven different individuals have filed law suits against Google Buzz for privacy violations since the free social network was launched back in February. Now, as per the recent settlement filing posted online (PDF), Google will pay seven plaintiffs not more than $2500 and 30 percent of the settlement money would go to the lawyers as covering fees. The remaining amount would be put in to a fund for organizations that are focused on Internet privacy issues and education.

Mike Yang, Associate General Counsel, in a blog post on the official Google Blog talked about the new simplified and refined privacy policies of Google. So now, if you agree to Google's Terms and Condition pertaining to any new or upcoming servise, you will permit Google to collect your data.

Honestly, hardly 2-5 percent of users who sign up for new services read the Privacy Policies thoroughly. Whatever maybe the case, Google did goof-up on privacy grounds and paid a hefty price.
result.