Taking a final shot before meeting in court, lawyers for Greenwich Hospital are rejecting a claim that the hospital violated fair trade policies in their handling of a drug-addicted surgeon.

Earlier this year, the hospital asked a judge to strike the central claims of lawsuit, arguing that the class action lawsuit does not make a "cognizable claim" under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. If granted, the lawsuit will be defeated.

"Plaintiff's changing legal theories and lack of candor on the applicable law demonstrate that they are struggling to stay alive in the face of the hospital's well-founded motion to strike," states the recently filed motion.

The original complaint, filed in 2008 in state Superior Court, alleges that the hospital violated state trade laws by ignoring Dr. Ian Rubins' drug problems to maintain the profitability of their specialized breast center. Rubins, a private plastic surgeon who had privileges at the hospital, died of a heroin overdose in 2008, just months after the state medical examining board suspended his license. Rubins had a string of incidents involving substance abuse and had entered rehabilitation programs several times while at the hospital.

An Indianapolis law firm has filed one of the first suits in the nation seeking class-action status in its case against mortgage lenders and servicers who used questionable tactics in thousands of home foreclosures.

The federal lawsuit was filed Tuesday by Cohen and Malad, which specializes in class-action cases. The case comes as the smoldering foreclosure issue threatens to erupt into a national crisis for the mortgage industry.

Attorneys general in all 50 states are jointly investigating whether lenders violated state laws. And on Wednesday a federal law enforcement official said the FBI is trying to determine whether the financial industry might have broken criminal laws in pursuing mortgage foreclosures.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has dismissed a class action suit against NVIDIA that accused the company of trying to hide its knowledge of defects in a line of graphics chips, in order to keep the stock price up.

In a strongly-worded opinion, Judge Richard Seeborg said the plaintiffs did not establish that there was any evidence that the company knew that its chips were defective. Further, the opinion notes that some of the evidence presented by witnesses was from people who did not work at the company and were not in a position to know if the chips were defective or not.

Judge Seeborg gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint, or have it dismissed and the plaintiffs barred from re-filing another suit.

The original lawsuit was filed in 2008, by Lisa Miller, and the class action suit eventually included two union pension funds and the retirement fund of the city of Pontiac, Mich. The suit covered those who bought NVIDIA's stock between Nov.2, 2007 and July 2, 2008.

The preeminent law office of Nurenberg, Paris, Heller & McCarthy has filed a class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson's artificial joint replacement company DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., on behalf of clients who suffered damages resulting from the company's now-recalled hip replacement device.  (Case No. 1:10CV02222, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division)

"Revision" Surgeries Required

DePuy recently recalled two hip replacement products -- the ASR Hip Resurfacing System and the ASR XL Acetabular System -- after data showed that within five years, one in eight patients needed "revision surgeries," which are required when an artificial joint doesn't properly fit or breaks down prematurely. About 93,000 people around the world have received one of these potentially faulty hip implants.

The legal professionals at Nurenberg, Paris, Heller & McCarthy expect the class action lawsuit to include hundreds, if not thousands, of victims. Headed by attorney David M. Paris, the lawsuit is seeking to assist those who have received a DePuy ASR hip implant and experienced pain, had problems walking, or needed a revision surgery to fix a faulty hip implant.

Investors in the failed agricultural investment scheme manager, Great Southern Group, have launched a class action against the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank which lent them money.

The bank took up the loans which were initially taken out with the Great Southern Group before it was placed in receivership in May 2009.

The 280 investors involved owe a total of around $14 million.

Law firm DC Legal has launched the class action in the Federal Court.

Solicitor Bruce Dennis says it wants all of these loans wiped off the books.

"The bank bought the loans from the Great Southern Group and our contention is that they bought the loans with all the problems inherent with the loans," he said.

Mr Dennis says the investors would not have taken out the loans if they had been provided with more information.

"The investors were misled as to the returns that they could expect," he said.

"Investors in many cases were not told that the financial advisers were being highly remunerated and investors were not told that the company was relying on continuing to sell New Woodlands in order to stay in business."

The European Commission will relaunch a debate next month on a controversial plan to help consumers launch class-action lawsuits to seek compensation for anti-competitive practices, according to a Commission document.

Collective redress makes it easier for small claimants in cross-border disputes to take action by allowing a large number of small claims to be bundled and brought to court by a third-party representative, such as a recognised consumer organisation.

According to European Commission figures from 2008, "76% of consumers would be more willing to defend their rights in court if they could join together with other consumers".

Financial services (39%), telecoms (12%), transport (8%) and package tourism (7%) were identified as the sectors in which consumers find it most difficult to obtain redress for mass claims by a study carried out by the EU executive.

But the proposals were shelved after criticism from companies worried about US-style class-action lawsuits and the possibility of hefty punitive damages. Class actions are rare in Europe.

Interested parties will be able to give their views during a consultation that will run until the end of February, the document showed.

In a May report commissioned by European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, elder statesman Mario Monti said it should be easier for victims of unfair business behaviour to be compensated in order to boost consumer confidence in the single market.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit against Apollo Group, Inc. that alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of Apollo's common stock during the period February 12, 2007 through August 3, 2010, inclusive (the "Class").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. A copy of the complaint may be obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants represented that Apollo's student enrollment in its programs, and its revenues and profits were growing, but the positive statements regarding the Company's performance and growth made by defendants were materially false and misleading when made, and were known by defendants to be false or were recklessly disregarded because the defendants failed to disclose that the Company's purported growth and profits were achieved through an improper course of conduct, including fraudulently inducing students to enroll in Apollo's scholastic and educational programs and engaging in other manipulative recruiting tactics. Further, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Apollo insiders sold over $450 million dollars of their privately held Apollo stock at artificially inflated prices.

The Complaint further alleges that the truth about Apollo's improper recruiting tactics began to emerge on January 7, 2010, when, after the close of trading, the Company issued a press release disclosing, among other things, that the U.S. Department of Education expressed a concern that some students had enrolled and began attending classes before completely understanding the implications of enrollment, including their eligibility for student financial aid. On January 8, 2010, the next trading day, Apollo shares declined from a close on January 7, 2010 of $63.94 per share to close at $60.50 per share, a decline of $3.44 per share or approximately 5.4% on heavier than usual volume.

Then, the Complaint alleges, on August 3, 2010, the United States Government Accounting Office (the "GAO") published a report finding that certain for-profit schools (i) used deceptive recruiting practices; (ii) inflated their tuition costs; and (iii) engaged in other "troubling" practices. The Complaint alleges that, as a result of these disclosures, between August 3, 2010, and August 6, 2010, shares of the Company declined from a close of $47.14 per share on August 2, 2010, to a close of $42.83 per share on August 5, 2010, a decline of $4.34 per share or approximately 9%.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than October 15, 2010 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP. Our firm, with offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey, has many years of experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving financial fraud. For more information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, or to review a copy of the complaint filed in this action, you may visit our website at www.kaplanfox.com.