On August 30, 2010 the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. submitted comments to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s congressionally mandated study of implementing a fiduciary duty standard for brokers.

COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO SEC:

Michael  Hill, Esq., CFP
Managing Partner of Securities Law Firm of Menzer Hill, P.A.
Boca Raton, Florida

The Securities Law Firm of Menzer Hill, P.A. supports the Study Regarding Obligations of Brokers, Dealers, and Investment Advisers pursuant to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. As an attorney, and former chief compliance officer for about 10 years, it is time that the Commission simplifies and codifies the roles of brokers and investment advisers.

Public investors are confused between the two roles and cannot discern whether a financial advisor is operating as a broker or as an investment adviser when dispensing advice. Many times industry persons are dually-registered and even retain customers having both a brokerage account and an investment advisory account. The Commission should enact standards of conduct for the dually-registered person so that the investor is treated fairly and consistently.

The Commission should enact fiduciary duty standards when a broker solicits or recommends the purchase or sale of a security. It should not be whether the broker is handling an investment advisory account (i.e., fee-based account) or commission-based account but whether the investor is entrusting him or herself to the professional advice, guidance, and disclosure by the broker.

Investors should also be afforded the ability to seek private recourse should the broker/investment adviser breach his or her fiduciary duty and not be left solely to the investigatory efforts of regulators.

The Securities Law Firm of Menzer Hill, P.A. primarily represents investors and practices in the areas of securities arbitration and litigation annuities and insurance arbitration and litigation investment adviser arbitration and litigation hedge fund and alternative investment arbitration and broker representation.

Menzer Hill, P.A.
7777 Glades Road
Suite 100
Boca Raton, FL 33434
www.menzerhill.com

Hemispherx Biopharma agreed Tuesday to settle all of the pending securities class actions against the biotechnology company that had been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The proposed settlement requires formal court approval.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Hemispherx (AMEX:HEB) of Philadelphia said the settlement will be paid from the company's insurance coverage and will not result in the payment of any funds by the company. The company said the settlement “expressly is not an admission of any culpability by Hemispherx or its officers.”

The series of lawsuits, according to documents Hemispherx filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleged the company and certain officers misrepresented the status of Hemispherx’s new drug application for Ampligen, an experimental treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome the company has worked on for more than three decades.

Last November, the FDA rejected the company’s new drug application for Ampligen and recommended the company conduct additional studies to demonstrate effectiveness. Hemispherx has stated it is continuing to work with the FDA to address the issues raised by the agency.

The following statement is being issued by Federman & Sherwood, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and John E. Barush, P.C. regarding the Quest Securities Class Action and Derivative Litigation.

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

               SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
                     OF CLASS ACTIONS AND DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT
                     ---------------------------------------


  This Notice relates to the following actions (the "Quest Actions"):

  --  Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
     situated vs. Quest Energy Partners, LP; Quest Energy GP, LLC; Quest
     Resource Corporation; Jerry Cash; David E. Grose; David C. Lawler;
     Gary Pittman; Mark Stansberry; Murrell, Hall, McIntosh & Co., PLLP;
     and Eide Bailly LLP, Case No. 08-CV-936-M

  --  James Jents, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
     situated vs. Quest Resource Corporation; Jerry Cash; David E. Grose;
     and John Garrison, Case No. 08-CV- 968-M

  --  J. Steven Emerson; Emerson Partners; J. Steven Emerson Roth IRA; J.
     Steven Emerson IRA RO II; and Emerson Family Foundation vs. Quest
     Resource Corporation Inc.; Quest Energy Partners LP; Jerry Cash; David
     E. Grose; and John Garrison, Case No. 5:09-cv-1226M

  --  Bristol Capital Advisors and Bristol Investment Fund, LTD vs. Quest
     Resource Corporation, Inc.; Jerry Cash; David E. Grose; and John
     Garrison, Case No. CIV-09-932

  --  James Stephens, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Quest
     Resource Corporation, Inc. vs. William H. Damon, III; Jerry Cash;
     David Lawler; David E. Grose; Jaime B. Kite, Jr.; John C. Garrison;
     and Jon H. Rateau and Quest Resource Corporation, Inc., Case No.
     CIV-08-1025

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED COMMON UNITS OF QUEST ENERGY PARTNERS, LP (NOW NAMED "POSTROCK MIDCONTINENT PRODUCTION, LLC") (HEREIN REFERRED TO AS "QUEST ENERGY") DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 7, 2007 THROUGH AUGUST 24, 2008, INCLUSIVE, ("QUEST ENERGY CLASS"), AND/OR PURCHASED COMMON STOCK OF QUEST RESOURCE CORPORATION (NOW NAMED "POSTROCK ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION") (HEREIN REFERRED TO AS "QUEST RESOURCE") DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 2, 2005 THROUGH AUGUST 25, 2008, INCLUSIVE, ("QUEST RESOURCE CLASS"), OR ARE SHAREHOLDERS OF POSTROCK ENERGY CORPORATION ("POSTROCK")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, that a hearing will be held on November 29, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in room 301 before the Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, 200 NW 4th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of $10,100,000 (of which a total of $1,010,000 will be paid to plaintiffs in both law suits known as Bristol Capital Advisors v. Quest Resource Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-09-932, (the "Bristol Capital Litigation"), and Emerson v. Quest Resource Corp., Case No. 5:09-cv-1226M, (the "Emerson Litigation")) should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the corporate governance reforms approved by the PostRock Energy Corporation board of directors in consideration for a full release and dismissal with prejudice of the derivative lawsuit known as Stephens v. Damon, et al., Case No. 08-CV-1025-M, (the "Stephens Litigation") in addition to other pending derivative lawsuits is fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate; (4) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of one third of the Settlement amount and reimbursement of expenses of not more than $350,000 should be approved; and (5) whether the class actions made on behalf of the Quest Energy Class and the Quest Resource Class, in addition to the Bristol Capital Litigation, the Emerson Litigation, and the Stephens Litigation, should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased common units of Quest Energy during the class period from November 7, 2007 through August 24, 2008, inclusive, if you purchased common stock of Quest Resource during the class period from May 2, 2005 through and including August 25, 2008, and/or are a current PostRock shareholder, your rights may be affected by this Settlement. If you are a member of the Quest Energy Class, the Quest Resource Class and/or are a current PostRock shareholder and have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Actions and Derivative lawsuit and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Quest Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9657, Dublin, OH 43017, or going to its website, www.gardencitygroup.com.

If you are a member of the Quest Energy Class or Quest Resource Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release no later than November 13, 2010, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Quest Energy Class or the Quest Resource Class you must mail your exclusion request, post-marked no later than November 15, 2010, to The Garden City Group, Inc.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Request for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses must be mailed or delivered such that it is received by each of the following no later than November 15, 2010:

  Clerk of the Court
  U.S. District Court
  Western District of Oklahoma
  200 NW 4th Street
  Room 301
  Oklahoma City, OK 73102

  Phillip Kim, Esq.
  THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
  350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
  New York, NY 10118
  Tel:  (212) 686-1060
  Fax: (212) 202-3827
  Class Counsel

  William B. Federman, Esq.
  Federman & Sherwood
  10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
  Oklahoma City, OK 73120
  Class Counsel

  John E. Barbush, Esq.
  John E. Barbush, P.C.
  120 N. Robinson
  Suite 2700
  Oklahoma City, OK 73102
  Derivative Counsel

  Michael J. Biles, Esq.
  Greenberg Traurig LLP
  300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050
  Austin, TX  78701
  Counsel for Defendants

  Robert S. Harrell
  Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
  1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
  Houston, TX 77010-3095
  Counsel for Defendants

  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Class Counsel:

  Phillip Kim, Esq.
  THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
  350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
  New York, NY 10118
  (212) 686-1060

  William B. Federman, Esq.
  Federman & Sherwood
  10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
  Oklahoma City, OK 73120
  (405) 235-1560

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") (http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/beckman/) today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Beckman Coulter, Inc. ("Beckman") /quotes/comstock/13*!bec/quotes/nls/bec (BEC 46.50, +0.85, +1.86%) common stock during the period between July 31, 2009 and July 22, 2010 (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins 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/beckman/. 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 Beckman and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Beckman is a manufacturer and marketer of biomedical testing instrument systems, tests and supplies.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Beckman's business and financial results. Defendants engaged in improper behavior that harmed Beckman's investors by failing to disclose the quality and compliance issues related to its troponin test kits. As a result of defendants' false statements, Beckman's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $71.20 per share on September 14, 2009.

On July 22, 2010, Beckman reported its second quarter 2010 results, announcing that it had missed earnings estimates for the quarter and further that it was reducing its guidance due in substantial part to troponin quality and compliance issues. On this news, Beckman's stock plummeted $12.64 per share to close at $47.26 per share on July 23, 2010, a one-day decline of 21% on volume of over 8.6 million shares.

The complaint alleges certain facts which defendants concealed during the Class Period, including: (a) Beckman failed to disclose that it had made certain modifications to its troponin test kit without seeking the appropriate product clearances from the Food and Drug Administration; (b) defendants failed to maintain proper controls related to product quality and regulatory compliance; (c) Beckman failed to disclose the adverse impact the troponin quality and compliance issues would have on its operations and financial results; and (d) Beckman's revenue and earnings guidance for 2010 was misstated and lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of defendants' false statements and omissions, Beckman's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. However, after the above revelations seeped into the market, Beckman's shares were hammered by massive sales, sending them down nearly 34% from their Class Period high.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Beckman 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
Darren Robbins, 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
djr@rgrdlaw.com

Apollo Group Inc, the parent company of the University of Phoenix, said the company and several of its executives have been named defendants in a purported class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit states that the company made misleading statements between Dec 2009 and Aug 2010 about Apollo and its business "in violation of federal securities laws."

These statements artificially inflated the trading price of the company's shares, the lawsuit states and is seeking compensatory damages.

In June this year, the company had to pay damages as an appeals court reversed a lower court judgment related to a securities class action lawsuit.

The company, which is considered the bellwether of the for-profit education group in the U.S., has been under pressure along with its peers as the U.S. government is scrutinizing the sector.

Rules in the education sector are being overhauled to ensure that students do not graduate with unwieldy debt and the programs undertaken prepare them for the jobs in the field.