It is alleged that Diebold’s directors are violating their fiduciary duties of due care, good faith and loyalty by rejecting without discussion an acquisition offer at a substantial premium by United Technologies, to the detriment of Diebold and its shareholders. Despite the potential to enhance shareholder value beyond that which Diebold can offer as an independent corporation, the board of directors has refused to negotiate with United Technologies.

On March 3, 2008, United Technologies went public with an offer to buy Diebold for $2.63 billion, or $40 a share. This represented a 66% premium to Diebold’s February 29, 2008 share price of $24.12. United Technologies has stated, in a press release, that if the Diebold board begins merger discussions, it is open to raising the offer price. On the same day, Diebold’s board categorically rejected the offer and refused further negotiation.

If you own stock in Diebold and you wish to discuss your rights as an investor, please visit our website, http://www.girardgibbs.com/dbd.html, or contact Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com) or Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com) toll free at (866) 981-4800.

Mobile broadcast service provider MobiTV appears to be softening its stance against mobile community resource community HowardForums after hitting the site with a cease-and-desist letter last week. HowardForums earned MobiTV's wrath after posting a web address purportedly enabling end-around access to premium MobiTV content, promising readers free access to all of the firm's streaming mobile TV channels via mobile device or PC. The URL, posted by a HowardForums member, was originally discovered on a Sprint forum and reportedly has been circulating on the web for several months. MobiTV threatened HowardForums with legal action if the site did not remove the URL and related links by 5 p.m. PST Friday, alleging the post constitutes "a violation and infringement of MobiTV's intellectual property rights, including, without limitation, its copyright, trademark, and trade secret rights."

But in a statement issued late Friday, MobiTV said it would attempt to solve the problem via technological means instead of legal recourse, stating it was "actively implementing additional security measures to address this unauthorized access as well as the isolated issue of certain content feeds posted on HowardForums.com and on other websites. It is our responsibility to ensure that our service and the programming entrusted to us by our content providers is protected at all times." MobiTV added it would not attempt to interrupt or shut down HowardForums. While MobiTV maintains the URL was not publicly available, and procured only through hacking or debugging, HowardForums proprietor Howard Chui told OnlineMediaDaily that is untrue: "No hacking was involved," he said. "MobiTV could've added access control and people wouldn't be able to view it anymore. When I want to protect something online I put a password on it or encrypt it."

Pfizer continued to serve up the pain to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries on Friday when the company reaffirmed its patents on the arthritis pain drug Celebrex.

The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal District said that two of the three patents were valid, but threw out the third, saying that it was not valid for the treatment of inflammation. Teva will now have to wait until May 2014 to market the copycat. Celebrex provided Pfizer with annual global sales of $1.7 billion in 2007. Bear Stearns analyst project that it will reach global sales of $2.5 billion in 2008, an increase of 9%, and that the drug will pull in $3.1 billion by 2012.

The New York-based pharma company has been battling it out with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries to hang on to Celebrex for almost four years. Pfizer sued the Israel-based drug maker after it applied to U.S. regulators for permission to sell the generic in 2004. In March 2007, Pfizer won a ruling from a U.S. federal court over three of the main patents regarding Celebrex, barring Teva from manufacturing the generic until 2015.

Boston Law firm Nixon Peabody LLP has hired William Tripp as counsel in the firm's private client practice, the firm said on Friday.

Tripp, who has been a trusts and estates lawyer for more than 35 years, joins Boston-based Nixon Peabody from crosstown law firm Choate Hall & Stewart LLP, where he was a partner.

"Bill brings years of experience to our firm regarding the management and financial oversight of hundreds of millions of dollars in trusts assets," said Jack Fitzgerald, leader of the firm's private clients practice, in a statement.

If you wish to receive a copy of the Complaint, or have any questions concerning your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or e-mail to info@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.

The Complaint charges SunOpta and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial performance caused SunOpta's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. SunOpta primarily operates as a producer and processor of natural and organic foods in the United States and Canada. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company was experiencing problems with its internal controls and inventory.

On January 24, 2008, following the close of trading, defendants shocked investors when they published a press release that revealed, for the first time, that the Company was performing well below expectations and that defendants expected to cause the Company to take a material restatement charge in the near term -- rendering its prior reported financial statements and reports unreliable, false and materially misleading. The Company said it expected to post a profit of 12 cents to 14 cents per share for the year, citing issues within its fruit and BioProcess groups that led to pretax write-downs and provisions of $12 million to $14 million. Among problems the Company cited were inventories within the Company's Fruit Group's berry operations requiring a write-down to net realizable value, whereby "preliminary estimates indicated that an adjustment in the range of $9 to $11 million for this issue and related items is necessary." The Company disclosed a charge of "approximately $3 million pre-tax, related to difficulties in collecting for services and equipment provided to a customer under the terms of an existing equipment supply contract within the SunOpta BioProcess Group."

After SunOpta drastically lowered its fiscal 2007 profit forecast and announced that financial restatements are likely, shares of SunOpta plunged to a low of $6.05 on January 25, 2008.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting shareholder lawsuits, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court, not later than March 28, 2008, to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. 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 Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224 or by e-mail to info@glancylaw.com.

More information on this and other class actions can be found on the Class Action Newsline at www.primenewswire.com/ca.

U.S. District Judge Mary L. Cooper in Trenton determined that the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association had not shown sufficient cause to order her to block enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, passed by Congress in 2006.

That law was designed to stop online gambling by choking off the electronic processing of money for online wagers or payouts.

The industry group had argued that the law was unconstitutional on many fronts, including freedom of speech and invasion of privacy concerns. It wanted the court to declare that people should be allowed to gamble from the privacy of their own homes.