Investors with failed agribusiness provider Great Southern have launched a class action against Bendigo and Adelaide Bank (BABL), in an attempt to recover losses from the venture.

A statement of claim issued by DC Legal on behalf of investors against BABL, which currently holds the loans, alleges that the Great Southern Group made false and misleading claims in its product disclosure statement (PDS) such as promoting unattainable woodlot yields and failing to report the true position of the managed investment schemes (MISs).

The group also offered investment in the schemes and loans in order to invest up until the month of receivership, according to the statement.

DC Legal solicitor Bruce Dennis encouraged other Grout Southern investors to join the class action.

Since at least 2004, the Great Southern Group was relying on sales from the following year’s MIS sales, which Dennis described as having a ponzi-like character, where new capital is constantly required to prop up previous projects.

Investors were unable to make an informed decision regarding the investments and would not have taken out the loans and invested in the schemes if the true position had been stated, Dennis said. About 260 investors are asking the Federal Court to set aside loans and to be reimbursed for all costs.

“BABL has threatened to commence action against borrowers from GSF having acquired these purported loans. BABL has even threatened the investors with bankruptcy,” Dennis said.

This is the only nationwide class action on the Great Southern matter, Dennis said, although a smaller class action was filed by Macpherson + Kelley lawyers in the Victorian Supreme Court in May this year.

Along with the Great Southern Group, three formers directors have also been named as respondents in the action. They are John Young, Cameron Rhodes and Phillip Butlin. The matter is due to go before the Federal Court on 22 October.

A response from BABL said there was nothing new in the statement of claim, which the bank described as “hopelessly inadequate”.

It covers the same ground as the Macpherson + Kelley action, and BABL has always acted within the letter and spirit of the law relating to loans provided to investors in Great Southern MIS and will vigorously defend the new action, according to BABL managing director Mike Hurst.

Although DC Legal claims to be acting on behalf of up to 2,000 investors, only 230 of its clients have Great Southern loans with BABL, Hurst said.

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.

The Complaint charges Green Mountain and certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. It is alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business and operations. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Green Mountain issued inaccurate and unreliable financial statements that were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and SEC rules, which artificially inflated the Company's stock price.

On September 28, 2010, after the close of trading, the Company announced it was under investigation by the SEC for issues related to improper revenue recognition. The announcement also revealed that certain of the Company's previously issued financial statements would be restated. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell from $37 per share to a close of $31.06 per share on the following trading day.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than November 29, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. 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.

While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/greenmountain/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800) 797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com.

The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Beckman Coulter, Inc. between July 31, 2009 and July 22, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Beckman common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than November 2, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in this action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in this action.

Beckman shareholders that wish to learn more about this action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should visit Lieff Cabraser's website at http://lieffcabraser.com/cases.php?CaseID=346 or contact attorney Sharon Lee toll free at (800) 541-7358.

Background on Beckman Coulter Securities Class Litigation

The actions, pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, were brought against Beckman and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Beckman, headquartered in Brea, California, is a manufacturer and marketer of biomedical testing instrument systems, tests, and supplies.

The complaints in the above-mentioned actions allege that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Beckman's financial condition and business prospects. Specifically, defendants allegedly failed to disclose quality and compliance issues with respect to Beckman's troponin test, a critical care test used to aid in the diagnosis of cardiac events, and that the Company made certain modifications to the troponin test without obtaining required clearance from the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, defendants allegedly failed to disclose that Beckman failed to maintain proper controls with respect to product quality and regulatory compliance.

On July 22, 2010, Beckman reported disappointing results for the second quarter of 2010 and reduced its full-year 2010 guidance due in substantial part to troponin quality and compliance issues. On this news, Beckman's stock plummeted $12.64 per share, or more than 21 percent, to close at $47.26 per share on July 23, 2010.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs' law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last seven consecutive years.

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

SOURCE: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Nearly two million policyholders of Great-West Lifeco Inc. (TSX:GWO) and its London Life subsidiary could get payouts of an average $300 each after the company lost a class-action lawsuit over the financing of an acquisition it made 13 years ago.

A $455.7-million settlement is set to be distributed amongst 1.8 million Canadians after a judge in London, Ont. ruled Friday that Great-West breached sections of the Insurance Companies Act. when it transferred money from the accounts of subsidiaries London Life Insurance Co. and Great-West Life Assurance Co. to finance the 1997 takeover of London Insurance Group.

After a 45-day trial in London, Ont., Justice Johanne Morissette ordered Great-West Life, which is controlled by Montreal giant Power Financial Corp. (TSX:PWF), to pay $372 million to policyholders of London Life and $84 million to those of Great West Life.

All Canadians who held a participating life insurance policy of London Life Insurance Company or The Great-West Life Assurance Company between 1997 and the judgement issued Friday will be eligible for the one-time dividend, if the ruling holds up on an expected appeal.

Depending on the type of policy and how much was invested, the amount each policyholder receives could vary from as little as $50 to as much as $6000, but the average will be about $300 each, said a source familiar with the case who did not want to be named as it is still before the courts.

According to the terms of the judgement, a litigation trustee is to be set up and will distribute the assets in the trust as dividends.

Great West Life has said it will appeal the decision and that several aspects of the decision are "in error."

The company could not be reached for comment Monday. However, it said in a press release that even if the decision is upheld it is not expected to have a material impact on the capital position of the companies.