The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of ShengdaTech, Inc. (“ShengdaTech” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: SDTH) between March 15, 2010 and March 15, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

“potentially serious discrepancies and unexplained issues relating to the Company and its subsidiaries’ financial records identified by the Company’s auditors.”
.If you purchased ShengdaTech securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than May 17, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  Your share of any recovery in this action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.  You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in this action.

ShengdaTech shareholders who wish to learn more about this action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff may visit Lieff Cabraser’s website at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/cases.php?CaseId=452  or contact Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.

Background on ShengdaTech Securities Fraud Class Litigation 

The actions, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were brought against ShengdaTech and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  ShengdaTech, headquartered in Shanghai, China, describes itself as a leading developer and manufacturer of nano precipitated calcium carbonate used as an additive in various products, including paint, paper, plastic, and rubber.

The actions allege that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading information regarding ShengdaTech’s business and prospects.  Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that ShengdaTech lacked adequate internal and financial reporting controls and that its financial statements during at least 2010 were materially false and misleading and did not conform with U.S. GAAP.  As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, ShengdaTech’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On March 15, 2011, ShengdaTech announced that it had appointed a special committee of the Board of Directors to investigate “potentially serious discrepancies and unexplained issues relating to the Company and its subsidiaries’ financial records identified by the Company’s auditors.”  ShengdaTech also disclosed that its audit committee had retained O’Melveny & Myers LLP as independent outside counsel, which had commenced an internal investigation, that the SEC had been notified about the investigation, and that it would not be able to file its 2010 Form 10-K in a timely manner.  Following these announcements, Nasdaq halted trading of ShengdaTech shares.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation.  In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last eight consecutive years.

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm’s representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com.

A major New Orleans hospital and the company that owned it have settled a class action lawsuit in the deaths and injuries of patients who were stranded there during and after Hurricane Katrina.

The settlement was reached Wednesday as lawyers were picking a jury to hear the case. The agreement is subject to court approval, which attorney Joe Bruno, who represented one of the families suing the health providers, said should come in a few weeks.

Kurt Blankenship, a lawyer for the defendants, said the parties agreed to keep the terms of the settlement confidential.

"This has been a long and difficult situation for all concerned," Blankenship said in a statement.

About 2,000 patients, medical workers and other staff were stranded at Memorial Medical Center — which was owned by Tenet Health Systems — after the 2005 storm. Officials eventually recovered 45 bodies from Memorial.

The class-action lawsuit was brought on behalf Leonard Preston's relatives; of other people who were patients at the hospital; and of others whose relatives died or were injured there during the hurricane and the flooding that ensued. It claims Tenet was not prepared to care for the patients as conditions in the city deteriorated and that there was no valid plan to evacuate the patients, both of which led to deaths at Memorial.

Katrina left 85 percent of New Orleans flooded, including the area around the hospital. The lower level of the medical center was under 10 feet of water. Electrical power and communications failed; temperatures inside the building soared above 100 degrees. Food and water were limited. Many of the dead succumbed to dehydration as they waited for four days for boats and helicopters to rescue them.

The current lawsuits have nothing to do with earlier criminal charges brought against a doctor and two nurses, Bruno said.

A New York court has rejected a class action settlement hammered out between Google and publishers that would allow the web search leader to scan millions of books and make them them available online.

Under terms of the proposed settlement of a 2005 lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers, Google would create a registry of books and pay $125 million to people whose copyrighted books have been scanned and to locate the authors of scanned books who have not come forward.

In exchange, Google was to have been allowed to continue digitising books, sell subscriptions to an online database and sell online access to individual books. It would share the revenue of books if the authors could be found.

But Judge Denny Chin said the agreement "would simply go too far" and would give Google a significant competitive advantage.

The Justice Department is also looking into the deal, and has said it might violate antitrust and copyright law.

Google has scanned some 12 million books from some of the country's finest libraries in what it has said was an effort to provide easier access to the world's knowledge.

In its original lawsuit, Google was sued by the Authors Guild and others who accused the search giant of violating copyright laws.

Other critics contended that the massive scanning effort - with no copyright permission - gave Google an unfair competitive advantage and broke antitrust law. The judge agreed on both counts.

The Michigan Supreme Court says it will decide if judges can order a sewer system when septic tanks fail and spoil a lake.

The court says Thursday it will take an appeal in a case involving Worth Township along Lake Huron in Michigan's Thumb region. State regulators want the township to install a sewer system, but an appeals court said local government isn't responsible for the problems of private property owners.

Some septic systems are failing on a five-mile stretch between M-25 and Lake Huron in Sanilac County. Waste is being discharged into Lake Huron and its tributaries.

Worth Township says it can't build a sewer system without financial help from the state.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Medifast, Inc. (“Medifast” or the “Company”) (NYSE:MED - News) between March 4, 2010 and March 10, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Medifast engages in the production, distribution and sale of weight management and disease management products, and other consumable health and diet products in the United States. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and certain of its executive officers violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Medifast’s business, operations and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company’s securities.

On March 11, 2011, the Company announced a delay completing its consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2010 and filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K due to “additional time needed for the Company to review the recognition of certain expenses in prior periods.” Following this news, Medifast shares declined $5.27 per share from the previous day’s closing price, to close on March 11, 2011 at $16.63 per share on unusually heavy trading volume.

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 purchased Medifast securities between March 4, 2010 and March 10, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until May 17, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. 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 wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of United Western Bancorp, Inc. (“United Western” or the “Company”) (Pink Sheets: UWBK.PK) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s September 17, 2009 offering (the “Offering”), alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Complaint”).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or via our website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/UnitedWesternBancorp-UWBK.

The Complaint names United Western, certain of the Company’s current executive officers and directors, auditors, and investment advisors as defendants. On September 17, 2009, defendants consummated the Offering pursuant to a false and misleading registration statement, selling 20 million shares of United Western common stock at $4.00 per share, for proceeds of $80 million. United Western also received additional gross proceeds of $7.8 million (1,961,325 shares issued at $4.00/share) as a result of the partial exercise of the over-allotment option to purchase additional shares granted to the underwriters. The registration statement incorporated, among other documents, United Western’s reported financial results and 10-K/A for 2008 and the reported financial results and 10-Q for the second quarter of 2009.

The Complaint alleges that the true facts which were omitted from the registration statement were: (1) United Western’s mortgage backed securities (“MBSs”) and collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”) were impaired to a far greater extent than the Company had disclosed; (2) defendants failed to properly record losses for other than temporary impairment (“OTTI”) in United Western’s non-agency MBSs and CMOs; (3) the Company’s internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its impaired assets; and (4) the Company’s capital base was not adequate in light of the impairment of its assets.

United Western ultimately announced multi-million dollar impairments in its investment securities portfolio, specifically in MBSs and CMOs, causing the price of its common stock to plummet. In turn, on January 21, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was appointed as receiver for United Western Bank by the Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”) under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

A Seattle woman filed a class action lawsuit against the Internet coupon giant, Groupon.

Barrie Arliss said Groupon sells gift certificates with clearly visible expiration dates, even though state law prohibits expiration dates on certificates.

In the class action complaint, Arliss also said the company put other illegal restrictions on the gift certificates it sells as Groupons.

Arliss said Groupon deceives customers into forgoing refunds when customers are entitled to them.