The fate of the largest job bias lawsuit in the nation's history — a claim that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shortchanged women in pay and promotions for many years — hinges on whether the Supreme Court will let the class-action case go to trial.

The court is likely to announce as soon as Monday whether it will hear the retail giant's appeal asserting that a single lawsuit cannot speak for more than 1.5 million employees.

Business lawyers and civil rights advocates are closely following the Wal-Mart case for its implications for class-action litigation.
"This may sound like just a technical, procedural issue, but because of the economics of it, class-action certification is often the most important issue to be decided," said Washington lawyer Roy T. Englert Jr.

If the high court permits the Wal-Mart case to proceed as a class action, it will put enormous pressure on the retailer to settle, he said. The plaintiffs have not specified the damages they would seek, but given the size of the class, it could mount into billions of dollars.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several large corporations have joined with Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, in urging the high court to hear the appeal and to restrict the use of class-action claims.

They argue that it is unfair to permit plaintiffs' lawyers to lump together many thousands of employees from stores spread across the country and to rely on statistics to prove illegal discrimination.

Several Union City residents have filed a class action lawsuit against United Water on allegations that the company cheated customers by selling them useless warranties that do not cover repairs.

The warranties, which cost about $150 a year, are supposed to cover the repair of broken water pipes, sewer pipes and other items, the attorneys for three 18th Street plaintiffs, said. Although the application says "Guaranteed Acceptance" in large print, there are actually many exclusions, the attorneys said.

Multi-unit dwellings are actually excluded from the warranty, but that has not stopped United Water from marketing and selling the policies to the owners of multi-unit buildings, the lawsuit says.

The suit was recently filed in Bergen County Superior Court in Hackensack, where United Water is based.

Attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran held a press conference Tuesday at the courthouse. Afran estimated that if all New Jersey residents in a situation similar to the plaintiffs were to join the suit, and the suit was successful, it could cost United Water as much as $50 million.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities firm headquartered in New York City, announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of shareholders of Green Bankshares, Inc. ("Green Bankshares" or the "Company") /quotes/comstock/15*!grnb/quotes/nls/grnb (GRNB 2.56, -0.07, -2.66%) .

The complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Green Bankshares' business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) that the Company was overvaluing the collateral of certain loans; (ii) that, as such, Green Bankshares was failing to timely take impairment charges to reduce the carrying values of certain loans to appropriate market values; (iii) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (iv) that, as a result, the Green Bankshares' financial results were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 20, 2010, Green Bankshares announced its financial results for the 2010 fiscal Q3 and disclosed that the Company's net charge-offs increased on a sequential basis from $4.9 million in the prior quarter to $36.5 million. Furthermore, Green Bankshares indicated that it had engaged a third-party loan reviewer, which contributed to the asset quality-impact reflected in its Q3 results. As a result of this news, shares of the Company declined more than 43% to close at $3.68 per share on October 21, 2010.

On November 9, 2010, Green Bankshares announced that in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, the Company had given notice to the U.S. Treasury Department that Green Bankshares was suspending the payment of regular quarterly cash dividends on the Company's Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, issued to the U.S. Treasury Department. Moreover, Green Bankshares disclosed that two large relationships totaling approximately $31.4 million had defaulted during Q3. On this news, shares of Green Bankshares declined more than 29.5% to close at $2.57 per share on November 10, 2010.

If you purchased Green Bankshares common stock between January 19, 2010 and November 19, 2010 and you have lost in excess of $100,000.00, please request more information now by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/GRNB

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a national law firm which represents investors and individuals in class action litigation. The firm is focused on providing exemplary legal services in complex litigation in the areas of securities, shareholder, antitrust and consumer litigation, through all phases of litigation. The firm has an experienced trial team which has achieved significant victories on behalf of the firm's clients.

If you purchased Green Bankshares common stock between January 19, 2010, and November 19, 2010 and wish to obtain additional information, please visit us at www.faruqilaw.com/GRNB or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com or by telephone at (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330.

Attorney Advertising. (C) 2010 Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We are happy to discuss your particular case.

A federal judge in Maine yesterday denied class-action status to four lawsuits accusing Philip Morris USA of misleading smokers about the health risks of light cigarettes.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. concerns lawsuits that were filed in Illinois, Maine, California and Washington, D.C., alleging that Henrico County-based Philip Morris USA marketed light cigarettes as healthier than regular cigarettes in violation of various consumer-protection and false-advertising laws.

The lawsuits are among 15 cases that were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in federal court. In his ruling, Woodcock said the plaintiffs had not met the requirements for class-action status.

"While the judge has yet to rule on the remaining cases in the multidistrict litigation, we believe this decision should serve as a persuasive authority in denying class certification in those and other similar cases as well," said Murray Garnick, senior vice president and associate general counsel for Philip Morris USA parent company Altria Group Inc.

The federal court ruling in Maine yesterday was in contrast to a decision in a separate lawsuit in New Hampshire state court Monday.

In that case, a superior court judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Philip Morris USA over its marketing of light cigarettes. A spokesman for Philip Morris USA said the company will appeal that decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

A $450 million class action is being launched on behalf of National Australia Bank shareholders who lost money during the global financial crisis because of NAB's exposure to toxic debt.

Legal firm Maurice Blackburn will lodge the claim in a Victorian court tomorrow.

The firm says NAB had bought $1.2 billion in collateralised debt obligations (CDO) in 2006 which had a heavy exposure to the US sub-prime housing market.

It will allege that between early January and late July that year, NAB failed to properly disclose to shareholders all material information relating to its CDO exposure.

As he travels about the city, assuring Chicagoans that he is one of them, Rahm Emanuel must be asking himself why he just didn't leave his house vacant when he went off to work in the White House. Or rent it to a buddy or a relative.

That's because a cornerstone of an expected legal challenge to his status as a Chicagoan — a challenge that, if successful, would knock him off the February ballot and out of the city's mayor's race — is that when Emanuel rented his house he broke the rule that a candidate must live in the city a full year before the election.

"He doesn't have a house. ... He's not a resident if (he's) renting the house," said Burt Odelson, a Chicago election attorney who said he's filing a challenge against Emanuel with the city's Board of Election Commissioners as early as Friday on behalf of several "objectors" who he would not name.

Emanuel has tried to diffuse any question over his residency since the day he said goodbye to President Barack Obama at the White House, telling Obama that he looked forward to returning to "our hometown" and even throwing in a reference to the Chicago Bears.

Since then, he's made his family's history in Chicago part of his narrative, from his grandfather who arrived here from Europe to his own children, the fourth generation of his family to call the city home. He's talked of his father's Chicago medical practice and his uncle who retired as a police sergeant after working in a part of the city that Emanuel represented in Congress.

In recent weeks, Emanuel and his staff have ramped up efforts to do away with the issue. His staff posted newspaper editorials and a letter of their own explaining why Emanuel is a resident on his campaign website, ChicagoforRahm.com. In a campaign television commercial, Emanuel shakes hands with residents and city workers while stressing he's a Chicago guy, coming home to run for mayor.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP 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 the common stock of Private Bancorp, Inc. during the period between November 2, 2007 and October 23, 2009, inclusive (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/pvtb.

The complaint alleges that violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period and in connection with its registered public offerings of common stock conducted on or about June 4, 2008 and on or about May 11, 2009 ("Offerings") that its Strategic Growth and Transformation Plan (the "Growth Plan") which led PrivateBancorp to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in commercial and industrial loans that were high risk, and that the Company's residential loan portfolio was suffering severe deterioration. On October 26, 2009, after the Company reported third quarter 2009 earnings results that fell far short of expectations, that despite having written off in excess of $100 million in bad loans in January 2009 the Company still held almost $400 million in nonperforming loans as of the third quarter 2009 and that its elevated levels of nonperforming loans were originated under the Growth Plan, the value of PrivateBancorp stock declined significantly.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 21, 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.

For more information about the case or to participate online, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/pvtb, or contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com.