A new foundation, Investor Claims against Fortis, has started legal proceedings in the Netherlands against the former bancassurer Fortis for "misleading investors", which it claims led to combined losses of €2bn.

The organisation argues that Fortis persisted in persuading investors to invest between May 2007 and October 2008 when the company was already on the ropes.

One of the foundation's claims is that Fortis failed to supply timely, accurate information about its exposure to sub-prime mortgages in the US.

The legal case – brought for the Utrecht court in the Netherlands – comes after the US high court decided that a class action by "foreign investors who have bought a stake in foreign companies on foreign stock markets" was inadmissible in a US court.

Within the EU, the legal climate in the Netherlands is ideal for shareholders wishing to reclaim damages from listed companies, according to Jay Eisenhofer, partner at law firm Grant & Eisenhofer.

Stuart Berman of law firm Barroway Topaz added: "This case offers a valuable framework for compensating duped investors outside the US."

Both law firms, as well as Alexander Reus, the foundation's director, have represented international shareholders against Shell for providing incorrect information about its oil reserves.

After Fortis became one of the three players that took over Dutch bank ABN Amro, it had to be rescued by the national governments of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Ultimately, the company was split up, with a large part of its assets being sold to third parties. The remainder of Fortis is now operating as Ageas.

Earlier, Fortis shareholders tried in vain to block the break-up of Fortis and hold its executive board accountable for the incurred losses.

The Amsterdam business court has not yet finalised a survey – conducted at the request of shareholders – into alleged mismanagement at Fortis.

The foundation said it had the support of more than 140 institutional investors, as well as 2,000 private investors worldwide.

The Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A., www.suemyadvisor.com, announced today it filed an arbitration claim against NEXT Financial Group (“NEXT”), for its failure to supervise one of its financial advisors who engaged in unauthorized and excessive trading within an investor’s account.

Consistent with the arbitration claim this Firm just filed, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (“FINRA”) BrokerCheck website, on November 10, 2010, states that NEXT “did not have a reasonable system for reviewing the transactions of its registered representatives for excessive trading.”

Gary Menzer, co-founder and managing partner of Menzer & Hill, P.A., says “the $400K fine and regulatory action FINRA assessed against NEXT is not surprising considering the activity we uncovered in the account of one of our clients and customer of NEXT.”  Investors are encouraged to contact Menzer & Hill, P.A. if they believe their accounts are being excessively traded by their brokers or are subject to other abuses.

The attorneys at the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. are dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have suffered investment losses. 

For a free case evaluation or to discuss this matter, please contact the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A., at 888-923-9223, or visit us on the web at www.suemyadvisor.com

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. today announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of China-Biotics, Inc. during the period between July 10, 2008 and August 30, 2010 (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws.

To join the China-Biotics class action, visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com, or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against China-Biotics and certain of its present and former officers and directors for making material misstatements and omissions about the Company's true financial condition. According to the Complaint, during the Class Period Defendants misled investors about the quality, nature, and quantity of China-Biotics' purported retail outlets and stores. The Complaint also alleges that China-Biotics' fiscal 2008 financial statements filed with the SEC are materially false because the Company's fiscal 2008 financial statements filed with Chinese authorities reported merely a fraction of the cash, revenue and income set forth in the Company's 2008 financial statements with the SEC. The Complaint asserts that when this adverse information began to enter the market, the price of China-Biotics securities dropped, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 16, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com. You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of CVB Financial Corp. common stock during the period between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010 (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from August 23, 2010. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Dave Walton of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.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.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cvb/. Any member of the putative 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 CVB and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CVB is a financial services company and the bank holding company for Citizens Business Bank.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results and engaged in improper behavior that harmed CVB's investors by failing to disclose the extent of seriously delinquent commercial real estate loans and by failing to adequately and timely record losses for its impaired loans, causing its financial statements to be materially false. As a result of defendants' false statements, CVB's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $11.46 per share on April 22, 2010. The top officers and directors of CVB benefited, as the Company's purportedly favorable financial results contributed to the compensation paid to the top officers.

Then, on August 9, 2010, after the market closed, CVB filed its Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") for the second quarter of 2010, revealing that on July 26, 2010, the Company had received a subpoena from the SEC requesting information about the Company's loan underwriting guidelines and its allowance for credit losses. The SEC was also seeking information about CVB's methodology for grading loans and how it calculates provisions for loan losses. On this news, CVB's stock fell $2.30 per share to close at $8.00 per share on August 10, 2010 -- a one-day decline of over 22% and a 30% decline from the stock's Class Period high.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) defendants failed to properly account for CVB's commercial real estate loans, failing to reflect impairment in the loans; (b) CVB had not adequately reserved for loan losses such that its financial statements were presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (c) defendants failed to maintain proper internal controls related to CVB's accounting for its loan loss reserves.

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

Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, 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 Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.

SOURCE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Dave Walton, 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
djr@rgrdlaw.com

Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint against Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.and certain of the Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing Acura common stock during the period beginning February 21, 2006 and ending April 22, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period'').

If you purchased Acura common stock 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 (scottlaw@scott-scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537 or visit the Scott+Scott website, http://www.scott-scott.com) for more information. There is no cost or fee to you.

Acura engages in the research, development, and manufacture of pharmaceutical product candidates utilizing Acura's proprietary "Aversion Technology" and other technologies that purportedly provide abuse deterrent features to orally-administered pharmaceutical drug products containing abusable active ingredients, such as tranquillizers, stimulants, sedatives, decongestants, and various other opioid analgesics.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Acura and certain of its officers and directors concealed material adverse facts about the Company's lead product candidate, Acurox, an orally administered immediate release tablet containing oxycodone as its active ingredient and niacin as an oral abuse-deterrent. After repeated glowing announcements by Acura to its investors touting the strength of the clinical trials of Acurox and the drug's potential for obtaining FDA approval, and thus commercial viability, the market was stunned when, on April 20, 2010, the FDA posted, on its website, briefing materials for the April 22, 2010 meeting to consider the New Drug Application of Acurox advising that: Acura's Aversion Technology was nowhere near effective enough to warrant approval, that the Company's clinical data was defective, that its clinical studies were not properly designed, that the Company had wholly ignored specific directives from FDA over the past four years as to specific clinical trials and evidence Acura had to demonstrate, and that that no evidence had ever been presented to the FDA that the niacin additive discouraged abusers from abusing oxycodone.

On this news, Acura's stock price declined 42.5% in one day, to close at $6.25 in afterhours trading. On April 22, 2010, the FDA Joint Panel voted 19-1 against approving Acurox. On the same day, it was reported that the FDA had been prodding Acura to demonstrate the deterrent efficacy of niacin since at least May 2009. As a result of these disclosures, Acura's stock price declined 39%, to $3.20 per share, in the pre-market trading on April 23, 2010.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com