The law firm of Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC, which has significant experience in class actions, announced today that a class action has been filed against Almost Family Inc. ("Almost Family" or the "Company") for potential violations of state and federal law. The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of stock during the period of November 4, 2009 -- June 30, 2010 (the "Class Period").

Almost Family, together with its subsidiaries, provides home health services in the United States, operating through two segments, Visiting Nurse and Personal Care.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations and its business and financial results and outlook. Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that: (i) the Company was deliberately increasing the number of unnecessary home therapy visits in order to receive increased Medicare reimbursements; and (ii) as a result of defendants' conduct, the Company's reported sales and earnings were materially inflated. As a direct result of defendants' false statements, Almost Family's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $43.96 per shares on April 29, 2010.

On April 26, 2010, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") reported that certain home health providers intentionally increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients to coincide with higher reimbursement rates through Medicare. According to the WSJ article, the percentage of Almost Family patients receiving 10 visits dropped by 39% from 2007 to 2008, when the 10 visit reimbursement bonus was eliminated from Medicare in January 2008.

As a result of the WSJ article, the Company has come under intense scrutiny, including an inquiry by the United States Senate Finance Committee. On July 1, 2010, Almost Family announced that it had been notified that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had launched a formal investigation of the Company. Almost Family also announced that it had received a subpoena from the SEC seeking documents related to the Company's "home health care services and operations, including reimbursements under the Medicare home health prospective payment system, since January 1, 2000." As a result of this negative news, Almost Family's common stock fell $3.88 per share or 11.11%, on July 1, 2010, on high volume.

If you purchased shares of Almost Family during the Class Period, you have until October 4, 2010 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. If you would like more information about your shareholder rights, contact attorneys Melinda Nenning or Elizabeth Hutton for further information without any obligation or cost to you at (513) 345-8181, Ext. 3095, or by email at mnenning@statmanharris.com or ehutton@statmanharris.com.

Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC has offices in Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; Dayton, Ohio; and Sarasota, Florida. www.statmanharris.com

Google never knew that it will actually have to pay a heavy price for its free to use social network - Google Buzz. As per AFP, Google has agreed to pay $8.5 million as settlement of a privacy lawsuit over Google Buzz according to court documents. Eva Hibnick, a 24-year old Florida resident and Harvard Law School student, haa filed a class action lawsuit against Google Buzz for sharing personal data without user content. Not only that, the California based search giant is asked to make more efforts to educate users about Google Buzz's potential impact of privacy.

Google Buzz social network was in troubled waters after Private Group complained against the privacy issues with the service. However, Google quickly worked and fixed the issue while the service continued to receive lukewarm response from Gmail users. Post that, numerous changes have been implemented in the service but a class action law suit was already filed against Buzz.  

Seven different individuals have filed law suits against Google Buzz for privacy violations since the free social network was launched back in February. Now, as per the recent settlement filing posted online (PDF), Google will pay seven plaintiffs not more than $2500 and 30 percent of the settlement money would go to the lawyers as covering fees. The remaining amount would be put in to a fund for organizations that are focused on Internet privacy issues and education.

Mike Yang, Associate General Counsel, in a blog post on the official Google Blog talked about the new simplified and refined privacy policies of Google. So now, if you agree to Google's Terms and Condition pertaining to any new or upcoming servise, you will permit Google to collect your data.

Honestly, hardly 2-5 percent of users who sign up for new services read the Privacy Policies thoroughly. Whatever maybe the case, Google did goof-up on privacy grounds and paid a hefty price.
result.

The Shuman Law Firm today announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of CVB Financial Corporation between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.

The Complaint alleges that CVB and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making a series of materially false and misleading statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants had propped up the Company's results by manipulating CVB's accounting for costs and expenses by failing to properly account for impaired loans. On August 9, 2010, defendants disclosed that the Company was the subject of an investigation by the SEC into possible accounting violations related to the manner in which defendants accounted for troubled loans. This disclosure had an immediate impact on the price of Company shares, which fell 22% to close at $8.00 per share on August 10, 2010.

If you purchased CVB common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class no later than October 22, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.

The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative actions.

A federal judge says all low-income African American renters in Antioch can join a lawsuit accusing the city of racial discrimination.
U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on Thursday approved class-action status for the suit, saying the renters had provided evidence that police practices in Antioch targeted African Americans. The suit was originally filed by a handful of women, but has grown to include about 1,000 people.

It claims Antioch police have tried to drive African American renters in federally subsidized housing out of the city through a policy of arrests and harassment. The city disputes the allegation.

Armstrong on Thursday also limited a potential damage award against the city. She said only four of the plaintiffs in the case would be able to seek damages.

Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action against certain current and former officers and directors of the Advanta Corporation ("Advanta") and KPMG LLP, Advanta's auditor, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. On July 23, 2010, the action was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The action for violation of the Securities Act of 1933 is brought on behalf of those purchasing Advanta RediReserve variable rate certificates and investment notes (collectively, the "RediReserve Notes") during the period beginning June 24, 2007 through November 8, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased RediReserve Notes during the Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. 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.

The complaint in this action alleges that, during the Class Period, Advanta's registration statements in connection with the offering of RediReserve Notes contained materially false statements of facts. These registration statements contained numerous positive portrayals regarding the state of Advanta's business, the adequacy of its capital reserves and the creditworthiness of its customers. These statements are alleged to be false because (1) Advanta was engaged in "unsafe or unsound banking practices," (2) Advanta operated with inadequate capital for its risk profile, (3) Advanta operated in a manner that did not ensure satisfactory earnings, (4) Advanta was unfairly increasing the interest rate it charged its credit card customers, and (5) Advanta's weak underwriting standards caused it to have numerous customers that were not creditworthy.

The complaint alleges that the individual defendants in this action signed Advanta's materially false registration statements. The complaint further alleges that KPMG served as Advanta's auditor during the Class Period and vouched for the false statements in Advanta's registration statements.

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.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a class action alleging securities fraud in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against China Natural Gas, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors. The case was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of China Natural Gas during the period from March 10, 2010 through August 19, 2010 (the "Class Period"). The case is entitled Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., C.A. No. 1:10-cv-00728-SLR.

If you purchased China Natural Gas common stock during the Class Period, and you suffered damages, you may move the court to appoint you as lead plaintiff no later than 60 days from today.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading public statements in its Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2009 and its Quarterly Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, specifically that the defendants failed to disclose and properly account for a $17.7 million loan it had entered on February 26, 2010 ("the Bank Loan"). The Complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the Bank Loan violated an Indenture for senior notes and warrants of the Company, placing China Natural Gas in default under the Indenture. As a result of the Bank Loan and the resulting default under the Indenture, China Natural Gas was required to reclassify approximately $45 million in long term liabilities to short term liabilities, increasing the company's short term liabilities as originally reported by over 700% and increasing the company's short term liabilities as originally reported by over 600%.

On August 13, 2010, after the close of the market, China Natural Gas disclosed that the company would be amending its annual and quarterly reports because of its failure to disclose the Bank Loan and the resulting need to reclassify certain long term liabilities to short term liabilities. On August 19, 2010, China Natural Gas filed a Form 8-K in which it disclosed that its prior financial statements should not be relied upon. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other Class members were damaged because they purchased stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period as a result of the defendants' fraudulent conduct.

The factual and legal bases for the Plaintiffs' claims are set forth in greater detail in the Complaint. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained from the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, 844 N. King Street, Unit 18, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 573-6170. A copy of the Complaint can also be obtained, without any obligation, from counsel for the plaintiff, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, (800) 287-8119 or (617) 439-3939, cases@shulaw.com. More information about the law firm of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and its qualifications is available on the firm's website at www.shulaw.com.