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 $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.

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.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in Federal Court on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of RINO International Corporation during the period from March 31, 2009 to November 11, 2010, Inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for violations of federal Securities Laws.

The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against RINO and certain of its officers and directors for misrepresenting the company's true financial performance. The Complaint alleges that contrary to the company's annual report filed with the SEC for fiscal 2009 which reported $193 million of revenue, the company's annual report filed with the Chinese authorities reported only $11 million of revenue for 2009. This discrepancy, along with other accounting inconsistencies, and questionable transactions between RINO and its management, has raised red flags and prompted an internal review. The Complaint asserts that when the market learned of this adverse information, the price of RINO stock dropped, damaging investors.

No class has yet been certified in the action. Until a class is certified you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. Sohmer & Stark, LLC has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants.

If you purchased RINO shares during the period from March 31, 2009 to November 11, 2010 and want to discuss your legal rights, at no cost and without obligation, please contact Amir M. Stark, Esquire at Sohmer & Stark, LLC (toll free:888-811-7179)

Sohmer & Stark, LLC has extensive experience litigating shareholder actions across the United States and has recovered millions of dollars on behalf of injured shareholders.

The Cook County Board has approved a $55.3 million settlement in a class-action civil lawsuit alleging that thousands of inmates at the county jail were improperly strip searched.

The settlement resulted from the county losing several federal court rulings stemming back to 2006. The courts had already determined the strip search procedures improper and the county has changed them.

The attorneys representing the former jail inmates will be paid $15 million, reports indicate, while the remainder of the funds will be divided among as many as 400,000 inmates jailed between January 30, 2004 and March 19, 2009. The County's insurance will cover $10 million of the settlement, and taxpayers the rest.

In the latest data-pass news, a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss several counts in a class action against security software company McAfee. The suit alleges that McAfee transferred consumers’ credit card information immediately after they purchased software but before they downloaded it. Pop-up ads would appear from a third party with a “Try It Now” button that, when clicked by consumers, would enroll them in a monthly program.    

The plaintiffs claim they believed they needed to click on the button to download their software and that McAfee received a fee for each customer who subscribed to the services of Arpu, Inc. via the ad on McAfee’s site. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs only later learned they were enrolled in a monthly program with Arpu, costing $4.95 per month, and that McAfee transferred their confidential billing information without adequately disclosing what they were signing up for.

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh said the plaintiffs could sue under California’s unfair business practices statute even though they could not claim any actual damages. Because the plaintiffs sought disgorgement of profits and restitution from McAfee based on the company’s business practices, their claims satisfied the state law, she said.

Discussing the plaintiffs’ allegations, the judge said there were several facets of the pop-up ad that could deceive a “significant portion of the public” into believing that the ad was affiliated with McAfee. The sequential placement of the ad, the fact that Arpu’s name appears nowhere on the pop-up, and the fact that the only reference to a third party appears in fine print makes it “difficult not to view the ad as an attempt to conceal [the] source and to pass off both the ad and the product as McAfee’s own,” the judge said.

Judge Koh also noted differences that could have tipped consumers off, adding that the plaintiffs were “unable to allege with any precision McAfee’s role in or responsibility for the content of the pop-up ad.” Although the court allowed the plaintiffs’ state law claims to continue, it dismissed claims under the Lanham Act, determining that the allegedly deceptive elements of the pop-up ad were not sufficient to establish a likelihood of injury by direct diversion of sales or a lessening of goodwill.

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.