The National Association of Home Builders said Tuesday that its monthly reading of builders' sentiment was unchanged in January at 16, where it's been since November.

While it remains the highest reading since June, any reading below 50 indicates negative sentiment about the market. The index hasn't been above that level since April 2006.

"At this point, housing remains on the sidelines of a weak economic recovery as consumers and builders wait for clear and consistent indications that jobs and economic output are reviving," said David Crowe, the trade association's chief economist.

Many smaller, private builders also continue to have a tough time getting construction loans and other financing, which could significantly slow the onset of a housing recovery, Crowe noted.

High unemployment, tighter bank lending standards and uncertainty about home prices have kept many people from buying homes, despite low mortgage rates and home prices that have fallen by more than half in some markets since the peak of the housing boom.

The Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. Files a $1.5 Million Whistleblower Claim Against Raymond James & Associates, Inc.

The Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. www.suemyadvisor.com, announced today it filed an arbitration claim against Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (“RJA”), (NYSE: RJF) on behalf of a former Operations Manager.

The claim alleges that the Claimant, while serving as an Operations Manager for one of RJA’s California branch offices, consistently reported on a series of inappropriate and violative sales practices by the branch manager, and certain other financial advisors of the branch office to regional management,
senior management and home office compliance department. Some of the alleged violations included unsuitable trading and churning in accounts of elderly customers, failure to respond to exception reports, unapproved seminar speaking, misuse of marketing funds and mismarking trade confirmations.

Claimant was then terminated and allegedly defamed on his Form U5 in alleged retaliation for threatening to speak to regulators.

Michael Hill, Managing Partner with the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. says, “one would think that given Raymond James’ and its affiliates’ regulatory history of supervisory failures, according to FINRA’s BrokerCheck, that it would act on compliance reports from its field force and increase its compliance posture to protect the investing public.”

For a free case evaluation or to discuss this matter, please contact the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. at 888-923-9223, or visit us on the web at www.suemyadvisor.com.

Shareholders of The St. Joe Company ("St. Joe" or the "Company") (NYSE:JOE) are reminded of the securities class action lawsuit filed against St. Joe and certain of its officers. The class action (Civil Action No.: 10-cv-0504) pending in the Northern District of Florida is on behalf of a class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired St. Joe securities, including purchasers and sellers of options during the period from February 19, 2008 through October 12, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as the Florida real estate market was in decline, St. Joe was failing to take adequate and required impairments and accounting write-downs on many of its Florida based property developments; (2) as a result, St. Joe's financial statements materially overvalued the Company's Florida based property developments; (3) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 13, 2010, David Einhorn ("Einhorn") of Greenlight Capital Inc. detailed the need of the Company to take "substantial impairments" and accounting writedowns on many of its properties, and warned that further building by the Company would drive the stock price to zero. Einhorn's presentation noted that St. Joe's "development plans have fallen flat, leaving it with 'ghost towns' and inevitable writedowns." For example, Einhorn said he would "generously" place a value of $17.8 million on the remaining residential development at St. Joe's Windmark Beach property, while the Company is carrying the property at $164.5 million on its balance sheet. Einhorn also stated that the Company "was 'stuck' after making an aggressive bet on beachfront developments that have gone nowhere, and that it was overvaluing the real estate holdings on its books."

The Complaint names RINO and certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors as defendants. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and/or omitted material facts. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, the Company represented that it was experiencing steady financial growth due, in large part, to the success of its Flue Gas Desulphurization equipment (“FGD”) sales. However, unbeknownst to the market, while RINO was reporting increasingly favorable financial results driven by its FGD business, certain of its reported contracts were, in fact, non-existent and, therefore, the Company’s publicly reported financial statements materially inaccurate.

The truth began to emerge on November 10, 2010 when Muddy Waters, LLC (“MW”) issued a research report about, and a “Strong Sell” recommendation for, the Company. In that report, MW states, among other things, that RINO had fabricated the existence of at least five of the nine customer contracts for FGD equipment reported in the Company’s public filings. Moreover, MW reported that filings with the People’s Republic of China’s State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) showed that the Company’s 2009 consolidated revenue was only $11.1 million, as opposed to the $192.6 million reported in the Company’s SEC filings.

The price of the Company’s stock fell approximately 28% on the publication of the MW report. On November 15, 2010, RINO announced disappointing third quarter 2010 financial results and the Company’s stock continued its precipitous decline. The next day, on November 16, 2010, the Company postponed a previously scheduled earnings conference call and its stock continued to drop. At midday on November 17, 2010, trading in RINO stock was suspended. It was subsequently reported that trading was suspended at the request of the Company based on advice of its counsel.

On November 19, 2010, RINO filed a Form 8-K with the SEC in which it acknowledged that certain of the allegations made by MW were accurate, and that the Company had, in fact, fabricated the existence of at least two contractual relationships.

The Company has since announced that investors should not rely on its annual financial reports for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, quarterly reports for the periods ended March 31, 2008 to September 30, 2009, and quarterly reports for the periods March 31, 2010 to September 30, 2010 inasmuch as they incorporate results from 2008 and 2009. The SEC has also begun a formal investigation into the Company’s financial reporting and compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Furthermore, the NASDAQ delisted RINO’s stock on or about December 8, 2010.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 14, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

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/RINOInternationalCorp-RINO.

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 proposed 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.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Participants in an ERISA plan associated with National City Corporation (National City) will benefit from a proposed $43 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging those defendants responsible for administering the National City Savings and Investment Plan (Plan) breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by making imprudent investments not in the best interests of Plan holders.

ERISA denotes the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, an Act designed to protect participants of investment plans and 401(k) plans by ensuring those responsible for managing such plans and investing on behalf of plan participants do so with the best interests of participants.

It was alleged that the defendants responsible for the employee stock plan allowed the investment of Plan assets in National City common stock or National City Stock Fund units during a time when they knew, or should have known that the investments they were making were imprudent. Further, according to a release from the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, the defendants are alleged to have breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Plan to invest in Allegiant Funds in violation of ERISA.

The defendants deny any wrongdoing.

The announced settlement of $43 million in the employee savings plan case, as proposed, will be less court-approved legal fees, various other expenses and case contribution awards to named plaintiffs. The remainder, according to the release, will then be allocated to the accounts of Plan participants who saw portions of their Plan accounts invested in National City common stock or fund units in the National City Stock Fund at any time from September 5, 2006 to December 31, 2008 and to Plan participants who held Allegiant Funds in their Plan accounts at any time from March 25, 2002 through December 31, 2009.

A hearing is scheduled for November 30th in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) before US District Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr.

Any employee investing in an employee 401(k) plan or other ERISA pension plan (that is, protected under ERISA provisions) does so with the hope that prudent investments and management will yield the necessary funds for a comfortable retirement. Beyond that hope is the expectation, regardless of what the market does, that the plan will be managed prudently—with the confidence that if it is not, then ERISA benefits under the 1974 ERISA Act will prevail.