If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.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.csgrr.com/cases/arbitron/. Any member of the purported 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 Arbitron and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides media and marketing information services in the United States and internationally. The Company's Portable People Meter ratings service is purportedly capable of measuring radio, broadcast television, cable television, Internet broadcasts, satellite radio and television audiences, and retail store video and audio broadcasts.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose: (i) that the Company's scheduled implementation of its Portable People Meter ratings service in certain major markets was not performing according to internal expectations and the Company was experiencing significant difficulties such that it would have to delay its implementation; and (ii) as a result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the timing of the implementation of Arbitron’s Portable People Meter ratings service and the Company's prospects and future earnings.

On November 26, 2007, Arbitron announced that "it [would] delay the commercialization of its Portable People Meter (PPM) radio ratings service in nine markets" and that the Company would be revising its financial guidance for 2007 and its outlook for 2008. In response to this announcement, the price of Arbitron common stock declined $7.21 per share, or over 14.74%, to close at $41.70 per share, on unusually high trading volume.

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

Coughlin Stoia, a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, 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 Coughlin Stoia Web site (http://www.csgrr.com) has more information about the firm.

A New Haven-based law firm dove into the fray over People's United Bank's alleged failure to protect customers' information from Dumpster divers. "We don't comment on pending litigation," said People's spokeswoman Valerie Carlson, of the new lawsuit filed in Bridgeport Superior Court Monday.

Michael Stratton, partner and founder of the firm Stratton Faxon, said he notified an attorney for People's of his intention to seek class action status for a suit filed on behalf of five customers worried their information could have been exposed to identity theft by the bank's alleged failure to properly dispose of private information.

"Some People's Bank customers were pretty upset," Stratton said after reading a Connecticut Post report that Fairfield resident James Hastings had spent months pulling many unshredded papers listing private information, including account and Social Security numbers, from trash bins at branches in Fairfield County.

The bank didn't know about Hastings' activities until Hastings showed up at its headquarters with a video depicting him rummaging through the trash and pulling out documents. Hastings still has documents he culled from branch Dumpsters, although police raided his home and seized some documents. The bank is suing Hastings; that case begins today in Bridgeport Superior Court.

Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of MF Global, LTD. ("MF Global" or the "Company") (NYSE: MF) in its Initial Public Offering on July 19, 2007 and on the open market through February 28, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of MF Global.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you are a MF Global shareholder you have certain rights. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you want to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by e-mail at clients@brodsky-smith.com, or by calling toll free 877-LEGAL-90.

The suit against South Carolina-based Force Protection on behalf of shareholder Allan Candelore seeks class-action status. The Post and Courier of Charleston reports the lawsuit claims top company officials did not warn investors about delays in delivering bomb-resistant vehicles to the U.S. military.

Force Protection shares plummeted earlier this month after the company announced it was reshuffling management and told shareholders it had major accounting problems.

Christy Toler of Jeff Davis County was struck by a car March 7, 2005, and sought treatment at the Brown Arrowhead Chiropractic Clinic in Brunswick.

Before she arrived at the clinic, she was met by a paralegal for attorney John E. King and signed a contract for representation.

Those were the basic elements included in a 2006 suit filed by Toler and three Savannahians against Arrowhead Clinic, King and several others.

Now Chatham County State Court Judge Hermann Coolidge has certified the case as a class action.

That means attorneys for Toler and the others named in the original suit can pursue a class of others who fit similar experiences.

The class, which will include plaintiffs statewide, could number as many as 3,500 individuals, said Stanley Karsman, one of several defense lawyers in the case.

That would include anyone in similar circumstances to Toler between Jan. 1, 2004, and Monday, the date of the order.

Coolidge directed the parties in the case to confer and submit a proposed notice to class members within 30 days.

Class certifications in Georgia may be appealed directly to the state Court of Appeals, said attorney Patrick O'Connor, one of several defense lawyers in the case.

O'Connor said he will appeal Coolidge's ruling, an action that could take "from a few months to as much as a year" for the appeals court to rule.

The original suit, filed by Karsman and attorneys Brent Savage and Steven Scheer, contended the defendants used their chiropractic centers to encourage incoming accident victims to use King to handle legal aspects of their accident claims.

They made no disclosure of any relationship between the defendants, the suit alleged.

The suit did not specify a damage sum.

The typical arrangement was for the patient, King and the clinic to each receive one-third of any money recovered from insurance companies, the suit contended.

In addition to Arrowhead clinics in Savannah and Brunswick and King and/or John E. King and Associates, defendants include Arrowhead Management Inc.; H. Brown Management Co.; Harry W. Brown, a chiropractor and sole owner of Arrowhead Management Inc.; and Harry W. Brown Jr.

It alleged professional negligence, fraud, negligence and breach of trust duties to the plaintiffs.

According to the suit, the defendants placed a profit motive "over and above the interest of the patient."

They also are accused of engaging in "unauthorized disclosure of private information and ... the over-utilization of chiropractic services."

Today, domain hunter Chris McElory chucked a federal class action lawsuit at Network Solutions, insisting that the Comcast of domain registrars uses "fraudulent and deceptive business practices to effectively trap consumers into paying its grossly inflated domain name registrations fees".

In the words of Brian Kabateck, one of McElory's lawyers, Network Solutions is guilty of "a very sophisticated form of price fixing". We take issue with the "very sophisticated" bit.

If you visit the Network Solutions website and show interest in a domain without actually putting your money down, the company will quickly register the address under its own name. For the next four days, you can still purchase the address from Network Solutions, but you can't purchase it from any other registrar.

Back in January, for instance, one loyal Reg reader searched the site for "network-solutions-registers-all-names-searched.com," and minutes later, he discovered that "network-solutions-registers-all-names-searched" belonged to none other than Network Solutions. Meanwhile, other readers have pulled this trick with domain names that describe the company's behavior in very different terms.

Though it won't speak to us, Networks Solutions tells others that by self-registering domains, it's protecting customers from cybersquatters on the lookout for highly marketable urls. "In response to customer concerns about Domain Name Front Running (domains being registered by someone else just after they have conducted a domain name search)," the company has said, "we have implemented a security measure to protect our customers."

So, Network Solutions is front running domains in an effort to prevent other outfits from front running. And judging from a recent ICANN study, those other outfits don't exist.

And even if they do exist, Network Solutions' little trick doesn't prevent them from front-running. It merely forces them to spend their dirty dollars with Network Solutions. Network Solutions claims that it would never sell domains to front runners, but we question its ability to identify front runners. After all, it has failed to identify itself.

The company claims that these mysterious front runners are also "domain tasters," those clever characters that temporarily register thousands of domains just to test their "marketability." And it wants the world to know that if ICANN would just prevent people from returning addresses within five days for a full refund, it will quit self-registering domains.

But this is merely stating the obvious. If ICANN removes the five-day full refund, Network Solutions couldn't self register domains without paying good money for them. And it won't pay good money for them.

As Chris McElory's suit says, Network Solutions' self-registering trick is merely an effort to make some extra dough. If customers search on a name but don't immediately buy, his complaint says, they "cannot register their domain name through any of Network Solutions' less expensive competitors because their chosen domain is unavailable through any other service - which (unbeknownst to the customer) is now held exclusively by Network Solutions - who is now offering to sell the domain to anyone willing to pay its grossly inflated registration fee."

The suit even goes so far as to say that Network Solutions isn't the only guilty party. ICANN is also named. "ICANN rules tacitly say that Network Solutions practice is acceptable," Kabateck told us. "We aren't seeking damages against ICANN. We just want a declaration from the court that its allowing this to go on."

What does Kabateck think of Network Solutions' claim that it's merely trying to destroy domain tasters? "Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get," he says. And we can assure you he's not stupid.

It was only a matter of time. Most have known for a while now that Bluray players were designed in different phases. The problem is that the same goes for the discs themselves. This leads to a situation where some players play some movies while some players are unable to. Such is the case with the first generation player from Samsung. And now the BD01200 player is the center of a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer Samsung.

A man named Bob McGovern has filed a suit because his BluRay player is unable to play some of the newer Blu-Ray movies.  His Bluray was manufactured in 2006 and is unable to play the movies due to the lack of updated firmware for his particular machine.

Samsung has publicly stated that they have no intentions of providing the necessary firmware update for the machine. Why the company would do this and face a lawsuit is a curious decision indeed. The lawsuit is open to anyone facing the same dilemma as Mr. McGovern.