SHARP INCREASE IN WHISTLE-BLOWER ACTIONS EXPECTED AS GOVERNMENT RAMPS UP EFFORTS AGAINST PHARMA COMPANIES

Fresh off his victory for a whistle-blower in the Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. lawsuit, attorney David Stone is setting his sights on the billions of dollars of settlements he expects awarded in future legal actions involving off-labeling marketing practices.

"The award of $313 million in the Forest Pharmaceuticals case is just the tip of the iceberg in comparison to the amount of off-label marketing kick-back settlements we'll see in the future," Stone said. "Pharmaceutical companies are under increasing competitive pressures. Unfortunately, in their attempts to increase product sales, many are engaging in deceptive and illegal conduct, which has endangered patients' health and even their lives, as well as cost taxpayers billions of healthcare dollars."

Stone, managing partner of Short Hills, NJ-based law firm Stone & Magnanini LLP, represented a physician who originally brought Forest Pharmaceuticals' illegal marketing practices to the government's attention in a 2001 False Claims Act lawsuit. Stone previously served as head of the False Claims Act department for renowned litigator, David Boies, and headed that firm's New Jersey office.

Stone explained that the Federal government is focusing more broadly on pharmaceutical industry marketing practices. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Inspector General are scrutinizing practices tied to relations between drug makers and the physicians who endorse their products; the content and distribution of product promotional materials; and the complex inter-relationship of manufacturers, physicians, insurers and others in the drug-delivery chain.

Forest Pharmaceuticals recently agreed to settle civil and criminal claims based on off-label marketing and kick-backs to physicians for the antidepressant drugs Celexa and Lexapro, and Levothoid, a drug used to treat hypothyroidism, for more than $313 million.  

Stone & Magnanini LLP specializes in False Claims Act cases in the pharmaceutical fraud area - initiating legal actions on behalf of individuals, as well as for third-party payers such as insurance companies and HMOs. The firm also works with pharmaceutical companies to review their existing practices and procedures in light of current DOJ and OIG policy-related initiatives. Visit www.StoneMagnaLaw.com.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today that Pro-Pac Distributing Corporation, of Gardena, Calif., has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $125,000. The penalty settlement, which has been provisionally accepted by the Commission, resolves CPSC staff allegations that Pro-Pac knowingly failed to report to CPSC immediately, as required by federal law, that two different children's hooded sweatshirts it imported and distributed had drawstrings at the neck.

Children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the neck and waist can pose a substantial risk of injury or death when the string on the garment catches onto an item such as playground equipment.  CPSC issued drawstring guidelines (pdf) in 1996 to help prevent children from being strangled or becoming entangled by the neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. In 1997, industry adopted a voluntary standard for drawstrings that incorporated the CPSC guidelines. In May 2006, CPSC's Office of Compliance announced (pdf) that children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck would be regarded as defective and as presenting a substantial risk of injury to young children.

About 7,000 of these sweatshirts were sold under the ProClub label at various retailers in Los Angeles, Calif., and Las Vegas, Nev., from November 2008 through December 2008 for around $20.  In July 2009, CPSC and Pro-Pac announced the recall of both of Pro-Pac's hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings due to a strangulation hazard.  Due to the serious nature of this hazard, parents are urged to immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts or return the garments to either the place of purchase or to Pro-Pac for a full refund.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule, regulation, standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, Pro-Pac Distributing denies that it knowingly violated the law, as alleged by CPSC staff.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death from over 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction.  Deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $800 billion annually.  The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

Under federal law, it is illegal to attempt to sell or re-sell this or any other recalled product.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-2772, teletypewriter at (800) 638-8270, or visit www.cpsc.gov/talk.html. Consumers can obtain this press release and recall information at www.cpsc.gov. To join a free e-mail subscription list, please go to www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx.

Prominent trial attorney Willie Gary of Florida and Charles H. Peckham of Houston, Texas announced today they are filing a $100 million discrimination lawsuit against three of Chicago's well-known real estate companies; The Lowe Group Chicago, Inc., Midwest Realty Ventures and Prudential Rubloff Properties.

The lawsuit is being filed on behalf of famed radio personality, George Willborn and his family for punitive and compensatory damages. Gary and his law partner Michael Lewis, Texas-based attorney, Charles H. Peckham and attorney Jason Williams of the Florida-based law firm of Gary, Williams, Finney, Lewis, Watson and Sperando, P.L. join in the cause.  The team alleges real estate agent Jeffrey Lowe, his company, and his clients, Daniel and Adrienne Sabbia, refused to sell or otherwise made unavailable to the Willborns a home, based on their African American race.  

"If this can happen to the Willborns, a prominent couple with the means to buy a home in an exclusive neighborhood, it can happen to anyone," said Charles H. Peckham at a press conference today on the steps of the Chicago Federal courthouse where they filed the lawsuit.  "This kind of arbitrary discrimination has to stop now.  It cannot be overstated the kind of courage it took for the Willborns to standup against this kind of racism and hold the people responsible accountable."

The Sabbias, a white married couple, owned the property and had been trying to sell the residence for two years when the Willborns became interested in the home and made an offer.  The Willborns were identified as qualified buyers, negotiations ensued and the Willborns accepted the Sabbias' counteroffer.  A sales contract was prepared but after many days, the Sabbias failed to respond or sign the contract.  The Sabbias subsequently took the property off the market stating that Mrs. Sabbia suddenly had a change of heart and no longer wanted to leave the residence.

The U.S. Department of Justice intends to assist the Willborns in the lawsuit. A verified complaint was filed with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and it was determined by the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) that reasonable cause existed to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred in this case based on race.  FHEO authorized HUD to proceed with the issuance of a charge of discrimination.  George Willborn and his family have been subjected to the emotional and physical harm of discrimination and have suffered damages including economic loss, emotional distress, inconvenience and a lost housing opportunity.

"It is unfathomable that something like this could happen in today's society," commented attorney Willie Gary.  "Since the days of Dr. King, our nation has come so far in the area of race relations.  It just goes to show that there is much work to be done."

No stranger to high profile cases, Charles H. Peckham is currently working as the civil attorney for Dr. Conrad Murray, the doctor accused of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson.  Peckham of the Houston-based law firm of Peckham PLLC is Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  Peckham is known for his experience handling cases involving racism and is licensed to practice in Texas by the Supreme Court of Texas and is also admitted to practice before the United States District Courts in the Southern, Northern, Western and Eastern Districts of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Charles H. Peckham concentrates in many areas of litigation including employment, real estate, commercial and aviation law.

If you've ever had the opportunity to meet Steve Martorano, it's an experience you won't soon forget. The same can be said about the experience of dining in his Fort Lauderdale restaurant, Cafe Martorano. That's a fact that hasn't gone unnoticed by other aspiring restaurateurs, which is why there have been numerous attempts over the past 17 years to replicate Steve's success by creating nearly identical restaurant concepts. Steve finally had enough and recently filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island against one particular imitator.

"I may not be able to stop someone from playing the same music we play or serving similar food to what we serve, but I can stop someone from copying every single detail of my restaurant...and certainly for taking credit for creating the concept in the first place," says Steve Martorano. "We deserve credit for creating a first class, world renowned restaurant that is unparalleled in the industry today. That's why we filed this lawsuit."

The lawsuit charges Cafe Longo and proprietor Jerry Longo with intentional trade dress infringement. Longo was once a friend of Steve's who spent many hours in Cafe Martorano. Everything about Cafe Longo is redolent of Cafe Martorano, from identical menu items and old family recipes, to identical music and movie selections. Longo has even been quoted by journalists as having developed the original concept for his restaurant at Cafe Martorano in Fort Lauderdale.

It's not surprising that more than one person has tried to copy Steve's concept over the years. Steve does seem to have a magic touch. It can take months to get a table at any one of his three restaurant locations. In addition to a dedicated local following, Steve's restaurants are consistently patronized by the biggest names in the entertainment and sports world. Cafe Martorano has received national and worldwide recognition. Steve also has a successful retail line of pasta sauces, recently published a new autobiography, and has other licensing opportunities and partnerships in the works.

What's the secret to Cafe Martorano's success? It's the man himself.

"The magic behind Cafe Martorano is all about Steve," says Thomas Angelo, attorney for Cafe Martorano and Steve's long time friend. "Steve has created a concept that is a combination of exceptional food and distinctive ambiance. When you mix those two things with his passion for the business, you get a unique restaurant unlike anything else."

Steve got his humble beginnings as a club DJ in the '70s. He then opened a one-man sandwich delivery business that he ran out of his apartment. His food became so popular in South Philadelphia that he expanded it to a take-out restaurant in a strip mall, then to a larger sit-down restaurant. Finally, in 1993, Steve opened Cafe Martorano in its current Fort Lauderdale location. And, as they say, the rest is history.

"We couldn't be prouder of what we've been able to create at Cafe Martorano," adds Steve. "I want to make sure that everyone out there knows that we're the one and only. We like to call it, 'The Real Deal, Philly Style.'"

The Chubb Group of Insurance Companies and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP have released a special report on the risk of fiduciary liability lawsuits.

"Business owners and managers need to understand the fiduciary liability exposures they face, especially in an environment where they are likely to reduce staff or employee benefits," said Christine Dart, vice president and manager for worldwide fiduciary liability at Chubb. "Employees who still have jobs may not be inclined to 'rock the boat,' but those who find themselves overboard are more likely to take legal action against employers, especially if their 401(k) plans sustained losses before they were terminated. Fortunately, employers can take steps to reduce the threat of fiduciary liability lawsuits."

The U.S. Labor Department reported 910 corrected violations resulting from the 1,042 investigations of violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) it conducted in 2009.

"The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in LaRue v. DeWolff and regulatory changes have helped empower individual plan participants to bring actions for losses to their own accounts, paving the way for other claims against the fiduciaries," added Charles "Chuck" Jackson, a labor and employment partner and co-chair of the ERISA Litigation Practice at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The new special report, "Who May Sue You and Why: How to Reduce Your ERISA Risks and the Role of Fiduciary Liability Insurance," includes measures firms may take to help reduce the risk of a fiduciary lawsuit, including:

• delegate fiduciary functions to committees with members who have the expertise and time to properly perform their duties;
• establish programs to train fiduciaries on  their responsibilities;
• ensure the plan's fiduciary structure and documents do not conflict with plan practices;
• review fees and expenses at least annually to make sure the plan is not charged for costs that should be allocated to the plan sponsor; and
• accurately document all meeting conversations and decisions and recommendations made by outside service providers.  

"While the goal is to address fiduciary issues before they go to litigation, that may not always be possible," said Dart. "Companies that follow guidelines such as those suggested in Chubb's special report may be able to better defend such claims; and fiduciary liability insurance may help manage the defense costs."

With 23 offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia, Morgan Lewis provides transactional, litigation, labor and employment, regulatory, and intellectual property legal services to clients of all sizes -- from global Fortune 100 companies to just-conceived startups -- across all major industries.

On Thursday, July 22, a federal court jury found that Cornell University's Weill Medical College and a former faculty member submitted false claims to the National Institutes of Health on three separate occasions from 1999-2001 arising from a grant designed to train neuropsychologists for a research career in HIV/AIDS.

The grant was awarded by the NIH from funds specifically allocated by Congress for HIV/AIDS research.    A clinical neuropsychologist then at Cornell, Wilfred van Gorp, now at Columbia, applied for a training grant from NIH, promising to train post-doctoral fellows committed to a career in research in the neuropsychology of HIV/AIDS.

One of those fellows, Daniel Feldman, brought suit under a federal whistleblower statute, known as the False Claims Act, alleging that van Gorp and Cornell instead used the funds for inappropriate purposes, including requiring the fellows to see an excess of private fee-for-service patients with other medical conditions.  At trial, Dr. Feldman showed that of approximately 160 clinical patients seen by the fellows over five years on the NIH-grant, only three patients were HIV- positive.  Instead of seeing HIV- patients, the fellows often evaluated "medicolegal" cases, referred by insurance companies or attorneys who were in litigation over disability or worker's compensation claims, or criminal defendants.  Indeed, Dr. van Gorp was well-known for his expert witness testimonies for the defense of several high-profile criminal defendants in New York during that period, including mob boss Vincente Gigante and Andrew Goldstein, the "subway pusher."

The jury specifically found that, over the course of the five-year grant, Dr. van Gorp and Cornell knowingly submitted three progress reports containing false or fraudulent statements to NIH in order to continue the funding of the grant.  The original grant application had described a rich program of faculty and research resources, along with a detailed core curriculum, including courses in HIV/AIDS.  Dr. Feldman and his counsel, Michael J. Salmanson, of Salmanson Goldshaw, P.C. of Philadelphia, argued during the course of the 8-day trial that the original grant application and the subsequent progress reports contained numerous false statements designed to convince NIH to originally secure and then continue the funding.

Dr. Feldman agreed that the fellows had spent some of their time in research-related activities, but at least as much of that activity was related to medicolegal research as it was to HIV.  Indeed, Dr. van Gorp had argued in his initial grant application to the NIH that clinical work is a "springboard" for developing research activities, and considering the disproportionate number of medicolegal cases that the fellows evaluated, the focus of the their research followed.  Other key issues argued in the suit over the grant application and its progress reports were formal HIV-courses that were never taught, key faculty on the grant who were never introduced to the fellows, and a breadth of HIV-research to which the fellows were never exposed.

Although the jury concluded that the original application and the first progress report, which were submitted prior to the arrival of the fellows, did not contain any materially false statements, it apparently decided that once the training program was underway, the defendants falsely described the fellows' actual activities under the grant in a way that was capable of influencing the government to continue the funding.

Defendants denied making any false statements, and contended that, based on the subsequent career paths of the fellows, the grant had achieved its ultimate objective.  They argued that the program was akin to a car trip, and that it did not matter what route one took, as long as some of the fellows ultimately arrived at the desired destination - a career in HIV-related research. 

In his closing argument, Salmanson responded by asking the jurors to imagine that they had bought a car for a trip to California.  Although they make it to California, they then discover that the seller had rolled back the odometer to misrepresent the mileage. Salmanson argued, in essence, "Just because you made it across the country, does that mean you haven't been defrauded?  Of course you have." The nine jurors apparently agreed.

The issue of damages must now be decided by Judge William H. Pauley III, who presided over the trial.  Judge Pauley had previously ruled that the proper measure of damages is the amount of money paid by NIH as the result of the false claims.  Based upon the verdict, that is expected to be several hundred thousand dollars which, under the False Claims Act, will be automatically tripled.  Although the bulk of the money is returned to the government, Dr. Feldman will be entitled to what is known as a "relator's share" of the funds as a reward for bringing the fraud to the government's attention.  Defendants are also liable for reimbursement of his attorneys' fees and costs, which over the seven years of litigation since the case was filed in 2003, has reached several hundred thousand dollars.

Cornell was represented by Tracey Tiska, Brian Black and Eva Dietz at Hogan Lovells, Llp in New York.  Dr. van Gorp was represented by Nina Beattie of Brune & Richard.  Hogan Lovells had represented Cornell/Weill in two other whistleblower fraud cases.  One of those cases had been settled in part last year for $2.6 million, although the case is still ongoing.  In 2005, the New York City-based medical school paid a $4.4 million settlement to resolve charges raised by Kyriakie Sarafoglou, a pediatric endocrinologist, that it was using part of a $23 million NIH research grant for private patient care.

Dr. Feldman says he is relieved that the case has finally been decided, having first raised concerns to Dr. van Gorp and Cornell during his fellowship from 1998-1999.  In the ensuing years, he was compelled to abandon his academic career.  In 2003, Dr. Feldman went into the pharmaceutical industry where he has built a successful second career.  In 2008, Dr. Feldman was elected President of the Pharmaceutical Management Science Association and last year he was awarded the Pharmaceutical Market Researcher of the Year Award from the Pharmaceutical Market Research Group.  Happily, he resides with his partner near Princeton, NJ, where they rescue animals and do organic gardening.

Despite the outcome of the trial, Dr. Feldman is still disappointed by the lack of oversight of billions of taxpayer dollars awarded by the NIH to large academic institutions.  He feels that this remains a larger, unresolved issue.  "And being a federal whistleblower is not something you undertake without tremendous sacrifice.  Whistleblowers have to be willing to risk their careers, lose many of their work and social relationships, and wait for many years for justice.  In the end, prevailing certainly feels great and worth the cost to do the right thing."

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against Westchester County, New York and its handgun permit licensing officers, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of a state law that allows carry licenses to be denied because applicants cannot show "good cause."

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied. Kachalsky's denial was because he could not "demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public." Nikolov's was denied because she could not demonstrate that there was "any type of threat to her own safety anywhere." In addition to Westchester County, Susan Cacace and Jeffrey Cohen, both serving at times as handgun permit licensing officers, are named as defendants. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division.

Attorney Alan Gura is representing the plaintiffs, along with attorney Vincent Gelardi with Gelardi & Randazzo of Rye Brook, NY. Gura recently represented SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association in their landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court victory over the City of Chicago.

Under New York Penal Code Section 400.00, handgun carry permit applicants must "demonstrate good cause for the issuance of a permit," the lawsuit alleges. This requirement violates the Second Amendment, according to the plaintiffs.

"American citizens like Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov should not have to demonstrate good cause in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right," noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "Our civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, should not be subject to the whims of a local government or its employees, just because they don't think someone 'needs' a carry permit. Nobody advocates arming criminals or mental defectives, but honest citizens with clean records should not be denied out of hand."

"Thanks to our recent victory before the Supreme Court," Gottlieb stated, "the Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a 'Bill of Needs'."

The case is filed as Kachalsky v. Cacace, U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 10-05413

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. 

The Justice Department today announced the filing and settlement of a lawsuit against the Pasco County Fair Association Inc. for allegedly discriminating against Hispanic patrons in the rental of a reception hall on its fairgrounds in Dade City, Fla. The department's complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa and the settlement is memorialized in a consent decree that must still be approved by the court.

The complaint alleges that the Pasco County Fair Association violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against persons of Hispanic descent by charging and quoting Hispanic customers and prospective customers higher deposit fees for renting the Dan Cannon Auditorium, a reception hall owned and operated by the fair association and used for weddings, anniversaries and other events.

"Public gathering places such as reception halls should be open to all persons regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, and our nation's laws make clear that discrimination of this sort is unacceptable," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "This settlement sends the important message that the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division are committed to eradicating illegal discrimination in public accommodations."

"People use public places like this to celebrate the most joyous and important events of their lives," said U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida A. Brian Albritton. "The U.S. Attorney's Office will remain vigilant to ensure access to such places without illegal discrimination."

The consent decree prohibits the fair association from discriminating on the basis of national origin in the provision of goods, services and facilities at the fairgrounds and the Dan Cannon hall. The decree also requires training of the association's board members and employees, the adoption of nondiscrimination policies and procedures, the posting of nondiscrimination policies in Spanish and English, the adoption of complaint resolution procedures, the retention of an outside contractor to test the association's compliance with Title II, and monitoring by the government.

The lawsuit arose after the Greater Tampa Chapter of the ACLU Foundation of Florida alerted the Civil Rights Division that the fair association was allegedly charging Hispanics higher deposits to rent Dan Cannon Auditorium. The government conducted an independent investigation, including using testers - individuals who pose as renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices - who uncovered evidence of possible discrimination.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin in places of public accommodation, such as restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, nightclubs, stadiums and other places of exhibition or entertainment. Under Title II, the Civil Rights Division can obtain injunctive relief that changes policies and practices to remedy customer discrimination. Title II does not include a provision for monetary damages for individuals who are victims of discrimination.

The continued enforcement of Title II is a priority of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division is available on its website at www.justice.gov/crt.

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 Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited (NYSE Amex: NEP) ("China North" or the "Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired China North securities between August 14, 2009 and May 26, 2010, 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 David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges China North and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. China North is an independent, non-state-owned oil production company that engages in oil drilling project management including the exploration and the extraction of crude oil in proven oilfields in Northern China.

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 a Company officer and a Company director engineered significant improper cash transfers between the Company's bank accounts and their personal accounts; (2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  

On May 27, 2010, China North issued a press release disclosing that in 2009, a Company officer and a Company director had engineered significant improper cash transfers between bank accounts of the Company and their personal accounts.  The Company also disclosed that its Chief Executive Officer was placed on administrative leave and that he had stepped down as Chairman of the Board, both pending the outcome of the Company's forensic audit.  In addition, the Company announced that its Chief Financial Officer and a director had resigned.  As a result of this event and a serious of other adverse events, China North's stock has been halted and investors have suffered significant losses.  

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 August 10, 2010, 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. 

Consumers nationwide demand a refund saying they overpaid for certain hi-tech devices

Consumers won a victory in their fight against a group of technology companies including Sony (NYSE: SNE), Hitachi (NYSE: HIT) and Philips (NYSE: PHG), who are accused of fixing prices of optical disc drives (ODD) common in computers, DVD and Blu-Ray players among other devices.

In a ruling on June 24, Judge Walker rejected a motion to postpone evidence gathering for a class-action lawsuit filed by consumers while the defendants address criminal charges. The judge's ruling allows the attorneys representing consumers to continue to build the case against these corporations that dominate the ODD market. 

Published reports state that ODD manufacturers sell 313 million drives a year for use in personal computers, and another 200 million for other applications, with revenue topping $45 billion between 2004 and 2008, and estimated at $14 billion for 2010.

Individual losses vary depending on the number of ODDs purchased, but attorneys believe the amounts are significant. "We intend to prove that the defendants conspired to inflate and sustain prices of ODDs simply to increase profit, all at the expense of consumers," said Steve Berman, founding partner of Hagens Berman and lead attorney representing consumers.

"While the Department of Justice is working on the criminal investigation, we think it is vitally important for us to push forward with our civil class action," said Berman. "While one of the goals of the criminal action is to punish the guilty, our goal is solely to return what we believe are ill-gotten profits to the pockets of consumers."

The relatively small numbers of ODD manufacturers, including the defendants, have a long history of joint ventures and other close working arrangements that gave ample opportunity to share information, the complaint states.

Berman said that the high cost of entry into the ODD market adds to the tight control the defendants have over the ODD marketplace. "When you can lock out competition, it makes it much easier to artificially - and illegally - set prices and bar competition."

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the court to postpone Hagens Berman's efforts to collect evidence, saying the actions could interfere with its criminal investigation. The court's ruling allows the civil case to continue forward parallel to the criminal investigation.

"The court's decision supports our belief that consumers' claims are as important as the criminal investigation and that our prosecution of those claims can commence alongside the DOJ investigation," Berman added.

Some of the defendants have been involved in the DOJ investigations on related issues in the past. Samsung, for example, paid a $300 million fine following claims of price fixing involving Dynamic Random Access Memory chips (DRAM). Hagens Berman was lead counsel in the DRAM litigation.

The DOJ also launched an investigation of Samsung, LG Electronics, Toshiba and Hitachi, among others, probing claims of collusion in the manufacture of liquid crystal displays. The ongoing criminal investigation has led to admissions of guilt by LG Electronics, who paid a $400 million fine and Hitachi who paid $31 million.

On Monday, October 26, 2009, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., a joint venture between defendants Toshiba and Samsung Electronics; Hitachi-LG Data Storage, a joint venture between defendants Hitachi and LG Electronics; and Sony Optiarc America confirmed that they received subpoenas from the DOJ concerning a criminal antitrust investigation including possible price fixing charges. In Philips Electronics' 2009 annual report issued a few weeks later, the Dutch electronics company also disclosed it was a subject of the same investigation. 

Since the investigation was launched, the defendants have been the subject of a grand-jury investigation. "Rarely does the Department of Justice go to the extent of convening a grand jury unless they have solid reasons to believe that a crime has occurred," Berman added.

Under antitrust law, customers who can prove that they have been overcharged as a result of price fixing may collect damages worth three times the amount of the overcharge. Attorneys intend to prove that the defendants in the ODD case agreed to manipulate prices and overcharged consumers for certain devices. 

Hagens Berman is representing consumers who purchased ODD devices after November 1, 2005. Consumers interested in tracking the progress of the case can view court documents and relevant updates at www.hbsslaw.com/ODD.