As it scrambled to placate the 400 ticketholders who didn't get a seat to Super Bowl XLV, the NFL has a second group of angry fans on its hands.

Eagan Avenatti, LLP, a law firm specializing in consumer rights, launched an investigation into claims that the Cowboys deceived season ticket holders into buying $1,200 seats with obstructed views.

While the NFL took the blame for the 400 fans whose temporary seats weren't ready for Sunday's game, Avenatti took aim at Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

"These season ticket holders are rightfully irate at Jones and the Cowboys," attorney Michael Avenatti said in a statement. "Jones sold the very fans that helped finance the construction of the stadium on the idea of attending the Super Bowl, took their money, and then put them in illegitimate seats with obstructed views. What team or owner on the planet would treat its best fans like this?"

Known as the "Founders," the fans helped finance the $1.2 billion stadium, contributing more than $100 million in personal seat licenses and another $3 million in annual season ticket sales. Each paid at least $100,000 in PSLs.

"We will get to the bottom of this," Avenatti said. "And when we do, I expect we will find that greed and ego had a lot to do with what happened."

Meanwhile, the NFL expanded its makeup offerings to the 400 fans who had tickets but didn't even get a seat on Super Sunday. The league's offering includes the option of a free ticket to next year's Super Bowl game plus a cash payment of $2,400 (triple the original face value of Sunday's ticket) or a ticket to a future Super Bowl, including next year's if so desired, plus round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations, but not the $2,400. They can wait until after the conference championship games each season to see whether their favorite team reaches the Super Bowl.

The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Life Partners Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: LPHI) ("Life Partners" or the "Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired Life Partners' securities between May 29, 2007 and January 19, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Life Partners and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Life Partners is a specialty financial services company and the parent company of Life Partners, Inc. ("LPI").  LPI is engaged in the secondary market for life insurance known generally as "life settlements."  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:  (1) that the Company had routinely used unrealistic life expectancy data that produced inaccurately short life expectancy reports, which were subsequently used to sell life settlement policies to investors; (2) that the Company had purposely concealed the historical rate in which individuals insured by life settlement policies sold by Life Partners had lived past the life expectancy rates previously provided to investors, such that the Company's investors were unable to assess the accuracy or reliability of such data; (3) that by underestimating the life expectancy data to investors, the Company was able to charge substantially larger fees when brokering life settlement policies; (4) that the Company's revenues had been significantly increased through the employment of such business practices; (5) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements were false and misleading at all relevant times; (6) that such business practices, when they were discovered, would initiate an investigation by the federal authorities into the Company's business practices; (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On December 21, 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article questioning the Company's life-expectancy estimates and business practices.  The article followed a comprehensive investigation into how the Company sold life settlement policies to investors.  In particular, the article stated that Life Partners "has made large fees from its life-insurance transactions while often significantly underestimating the life expectancies of people whose policies its customers invest in."  Then on January 20, 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported, and the Company subsequently confirmed, that the SEC was investigating Life Partners. The article reported that "As part of its probe, the SEC's enforcement division has been seeking experts to analyze the way Life Partners has estimated the life expectancies of the insured individuals."  On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.58 per share, or over 17 percent, to close on January 20, 2011 at $12.46 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  The Company's stock continued to decline as additional news about Life Partners was subsequently reported.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.btkmc.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than April 4, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  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.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  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. 

CONTACT:

Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 

Darren J. Check, Esq. 

D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. 

280 King of Prussia Road 

Radnor, PA 19087 

1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 

Or by e-mail at info@btkmc.com

The plaintiff for the case, Patrick Hendricks, claims that the "phantom data" over-charges were also found by an independent consulting company, which the complaint says "purchased an iPhone from an AT&T store, immediately disabled all push notifications and location services, confirmed that no email account was configured on the phone, closed all applications, and let the phone sit untouched for ten days."

Hendricks' complaint states that the consulting firm found that nearly 2.3 megabytes of data were charged against the new account for that 10 day period. The suit says that this is "like a rigged gas pump charging you when you never even pulled your car into the station." The complaint says that a 2 month study conducted by the consulting firm showed that AT&T typically over charged for data by 7 to 14 percent, and sometimes as much as by 300 percent. The study also claims that the actual data sessions are not posted in a timely manner, often leading to data use near the end of a billing cycle being applied to the next month.

LexisNexis has been charging litigants "unconscionable" rates to file online documents in Texas federal courts, creating a poll tax-like situation that creates an unconstitutional barrier to open courts, a class action claims in Bexar County Court. The company, and its Netherlands-based parent, Reed Elsevier, faces similar lawsuits in Georgia and Texas federal court.

Lead plaintiff Karen McPeters says she was affected by the LexisNexis' deceptive practices when the discrimination case she filed against Montgomery County, Texas, was transferred to that county's court, where electronic filing is mandatory, in September 2007.

LexisNexis unlawfully conceals that it charges "nearly $16 for every piece of paper filed" online in Montgomery County District Court, according to the complaint.
    "

Missing a plane connection cost Utah gun owner Greg Revell 10 days in jail after he was stranded in New Jersey with an unloaded firearm he had legally checked with his luggage in Salt Lake City.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court without comment refused on Tuesday to let Revell sue Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police for arresting him on illegal possession of a firearm in New Jersey and for not returning his gun and ammunition to him for more than three years.

Revell was flying from Salt Lake City to Allentown, Pa., on March 31, 2005, with connections in Minneapolis and Newark, N.J. He had checked his Utah-licensed gun and ammunition with his luggage in Salt Lake City and asked airport officials to deliver them both with his luggage in Allentown.

But the flight from Minneapolis to Newark was late, so Revell missed his connection to Allentown. The airline wanted to bus its passengers to Allentown, but Revell realized that his luggage had not made it onto the bus and got off. After finding his luggage had been given a final destination of Newark by mistake, Revell missed the bus. He collected his luggage, including his gun and ammunition, and decided to wait in a nearby hotel with his stuff until the next flight in the morning.

Len Gratto says there's no way he is paying a $5,200 fine to Mission, B.C., for growing cucumbers in his basement.

Gratto -- who has lived in the home for 30 years -- says he's raring to join an imminent class-action lawsuit attacking the municipality's grow-op bylaw inspections. A number of citizens, led by Stacy Gowanlock, allege their homes were illegally searched for marijuana grow ops resulting in them being slapped with fees and repair orders costing upward of $10,000 -- all on questionable evidence.

Gratto, 67, says he's never grown pot, but "laughable" evidence against him consists of pictures of some "dirt" on the basement wall and "a furnace pipe going up into the chimney, where it should be.

"It's upsetting they can do this," Gratto said. "We were growing cucumbers in the basement because they wouldn't take outside."

Gowanlock said he was searched in 2009 and hit with thousands in fees and repair orders despite never growing pot in his home.

A coalition of environmental and Native American groups on Monday sued the California Department of Fish and Game over permits issued to build 21,000 homes on Los Angeles County's last major tract of undeveloped land.

The coalition, which filed the suit in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleges that fish and game officials violated state environmental codes in granting permits Dec. 3 for the controversial Newhall Ranch development.

"It is appalling that the Department of Fish and Game, the trustee for all of California's wildlife, approved ecological destruction on this scale," said John Buse, a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs. "Far less damaging options were available, but the department brushed them aside."

Fish and Game spokesman Andrew Hughan said he could not comment because the department has not yet seen the lawsuit, but in an earlier statement department officials said the approved plan will preserve 70 percent of the nearly 14,000-acre area as natural open space.

That space includes preserves to protect 76 percent of the rare San Fernando Valley spineflower and 93 percent of the Santa Clara River corridor.

Developers must also establish a $6 million endowment for preservation efforts.

"Hundreds of people, including biologists, botanists, hydrologists and other scientists, worked together to shape this biologically innovative project, and the end result ensures the protection of this site's unique natural resources," said Ed Pert, South Coast regional manager.