Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint against Oilsands Quest Inc. ("Oilsands Quest" or the "Company") (AMEX:BQI) and certain of the Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing the common stock and other publicly-traded securities of Oilsands Quest between August 14, 2006 and July 14, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including Oilsands Quest's "Exchangeable Shares" offered as consideration for the minority interest in OQI Sask on August 14, 2006; Oilsands Quest's "units" first publicly offered on December 5, 2007 at $5.00 per unit; Oilsands Quest common stock shares publicly offered on December 5, 2007 on a flow-through basis at $6.11 ($6.17 CDN) per share; and Oilsands Quest's "units" first publicly offered on May 1, 2009 at $0.85 per unit.

If you purchased Oilsands Quest common stock or other Oilsands Quest securities 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, http://www.scott-scott.com for more information. There is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint filed in the action charges that, during the Class Period, Oilsands Quest and certain of its officers and directors overstated the value of the Company's assets by more than $136 million in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Practices ("GAAP").

As alleged in the complaint, on August 14, 2006, Oilsands Quest acquired the minority interest in its operating subsidiary, OQI Sask, that the Company did not already own. The Complaint alleges that Oilsands Quest's Class Period financial reports and statements issued thereafter were false and misleading in that: (a) defendants failed to properly account for Oilsands Quest's acquisition of the minority interest of OQI Sask in August 2006, materially overstating the value of OQI Sask throughout the Class Period; (b) Oilsands Quest's financial statements overstated the value of the Company's interest in OQI Sask and were presented in violation of GAAP throughout the Class Period; and (c) contrary to defendants' Class Period assurances, the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent it from improperly inflating the value of its assets.

A former public relations employee has sued Publicis Groupe SA for $100 million, saying the French advertising company discriminates against women in pay and promotions.

Women make up 70 percent of the company's public relations staff but hold only about 15 percent of leadership positions, the lawsuit says.

"A Publicis woman's place is in the back of the line, far removed from senior management positions, almost all of which are reserved for the men," the complaint contends.

The case was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan and seeks class-action status. It was filed by Monique da Silva Moore, who was global healthcare director in the Boston office of the company's public relations division MSLGroup.

"We generally do not comment on pending litigation, but we can say that the fact that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dismissed Ms da Silva's charge reflects the lack of merit to her claims," a spokeswoman for MSLGroup said.

A class action lawsuit is alleging that Fixodent denture cream may have caused serious problems.

ABC News reported that lawyers for two former denture cream users are accusing Proctor & Gamble of manufacturing a product that made their clients extremely ill.

Mark Jacoby, a 41-year-old construction worker who wore dentures for 20 years, told ABC News that he believes his debilitating neurological illness is due to the high zinc content in his Fixodent.

"I started getting tingling in my fingertips. And then it started happening in my toes," he told ABC News' 20/20 anchor Chris Cuomo, who is the Chief of the Law & Justice Unit. "I started getting weaker and, you know, I couldn't walk right, off balance and I'm at this point now."

He said his doctors searched for years for the cause of his debilitating neurological illness that robbed him of his independence.

The complaint, which seeks compensatory damages of over $5 Million, claims that the unlawful acts of Jones, the NFL and the Cowboys resulted in approximately 400 fans who purchased tickets and traveled to the game being denied a seat, despite having spent thousands of dollars in tickets and travel expenses to attend the Super Bowl. The complaint also alleges that Jones and the Cowboys deceived Cowboys season ticket holders known as the “Founders” into paying $1,200 a seat for Super Bowl tickets that turned out to be temporary seats with obstructed views.

The “Founders,” who collectively account for over $100 Million in personal seat licenses sold to help fund construction of the stadium, each paid at least $100,000 per seat for their seat license, which the Cowboys and Jones promised would entitle them to the “best sightlines in the stadium” and the right to purchase a ticket to Sunday’s Super Bowl at face value. Instead, they arrived at the stadium Sunday to discover that they had been assigned to sit in obstructed view, temporary metal seats, which had only recently been installed in an effort to meet Jones’ goal of breaking NFL Super Bowl attendance records.

“You don’t have to own the Cowboys or run the NFL to know that you cannot lawfully treat people like this,” stated lead attorney Michael Avenatti. “At an absolute minimum, Jones, the Cowboys and the NFL need to accept full responsibility and reimburse fans one hundred percent for their expenses and damages. Anything short of that is a slap in the face to the fans of the NFL and the Cowboys.”

For more information about the lawsuit, please visit www.ticketlawsuit.com or contact Judy Regnier at jregnier@eoalaw.com.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, 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 a class (the “Class”) of investors who purchased Broadwind Energy, Inc. (“Broadwind” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:BWEN - News) common stock between the period of March 17, 2010 through August 9, 2010.

The Complaint alleges Broadwind and certain of its officers and directors with violating the federal securities laws by failing to disclose that: (i) Broadwind’s RBA subsidiary was experiencing significant issues with key contracts; (ii) Broadwind was materially overstating its financial condition by improperly delaying the recognition of the impairment of its goodwill and intangible assets related to its RBA subsidiary; (iii) the Company was experiencing a reduction in demand from its customers; (iv) Broadwind’s financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures; and (v) defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects. As a result, the Company’s statements concerning its business prospects and financial performance were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 9, 2010, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second quarter of 2010, the period ending June 30, 2010. For the quarter, the Company reported lower than expected revenues of $36.6 million and a net loss of $14.2 million or $.13 per share.

In a reaction to this news, shares of BWEN common stock fell $0.35 per share to close on August 9, 2010 at $2.50 per share, representing a drop of 12%.

If you purchased BWEN common stock between March 17, 2010 through August 9, 2010 and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this action, you must move the Court no later than April 12, 2011. 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 a member of the proposed class.

If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights as a potential class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact: Jack G. Fruchter or Arthur J. Chen of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP toll free at (800) 440-8986, or via e-mail at info@aftlaw.com or achen@aftlaw.com.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extensive experience in securities class action cases, and the firm has been ranked among the leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries achieved by a survey of class action law firms conducted by Institutional Shareholder Services.

Lawfirm Siskinds has announced a class-action lawsuit against Smart Technologies Inc., seeking $100 million in compensation for people who bought shares during the company's initial public stock offering in July.

The lawsuit claims the Calgary-based maker of interactive whiteboards — used to make classroom presentations— failed to disclose a significant decline in sales growth and poor performance of a company it had acquired.

Lead plaintiffs Robert LeFever and Gail Runnells say they bought shares in July at US$17 each, and claim the share value fell after interim financial statements were released in November.

The shares are currently worth about $9.

The suit is filed against several defendants including Smart Technologies, members of the company's board of directors, and several major banks that acted as underwriters in the offering.

Shares in Smart Technologies were down one cent to $9.09 in midday trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
...

Comcast has agreed to pay up to $23 million to Oregon customers who were charged late fees from July 15, 2003, through Nov. 22, 2010, to settle a class-action lawsuit.

Comcast also agreed to donate a total of $75,000 to the Oregon Food Bank and United Way of the Columbia and Willamette and to pay Portland lawyer David Sugerman’s legal fees of up to $5 million. Sugerman was appointed by the court to represent Comcast customers.

The lawsuit, filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, involved claims “that late fees and/or administrative fees charged by Comcast to delinquent cable television subscribers...failed to comply with the requirements of Oregon law,” according to the settlement website.

Comcast did not admit to any wrongdoing in the settlement. An Oregon spokeswoman for Comcast said in a written statement Wednesday that the company “denies liability and maintains that the late fees are legal.”