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.

Israeli mobile phone company Cellcom Israel Ltd. said Thursday that it has received two class-action lawsuits seeking NIS 61 millions ($16.6 million) and NIS 25 millions, respectively. The company did not have a comment about the lawsuits chances of success.

Also on Thursday, the company acknowledged that its network suffered an outage Wednesday. To make amends, it will refund all of its subscribers' calls and text messages for the past week, a concession that the company says will negatively affect its results for the current quarter.

Shares of Cellcom rose 53 cents to $34.18 in afternoon trading.

Wal-Mart is trying to halt the lawsuit, with the backing of many other big companies concerned about rules for class-action cases — those in which people with similar interests increase their leverage by joining in a single claim. Class actions against discount seller Costco and the tobacco industry are among pending claims that the high court's decision might alter.

The suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. contends that women at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores are paid less and promoted less often than men. The case the high court accepted on Monday will not examine whether the claims are true, only whether they can be tried together.

Estimates of the size of the class range from 500,000 to 1.5 million women who work or once worked for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is appealing a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the class-action lawsuit could go to trial.

Tobacco giant Altria Corp., Bank of America Corp., Dole Food Company Inc., General Electric Co., Intel Corp., Pepsico Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc. are among the companies that also called for high court review of the case.

The Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A., www.suemyadvisor.com, announced today it filed an arbitration claim against NEXT Financial Group (“NEXT”), for its failure to supervise one of its financial advisors who engaged in unauthorized and excessive trading within an investor’s account.

Consistent with the arbitration claim this Firm just filed, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (“FINRA”) BrokerCheck website, on November 10, 2010, states that NEXT “did not have a reasonable system for reviewing the transactions of its registered representatives for excessive trading.”

Gary Menzer, co-founder and managing partner of Menzer & Hill, P.A., says “the $400K fine and regulatory action FINRA assessed against NEXT is not surprising considering the activity we uncovered in the account of one of our clients and customer of NEXT.”  Investors are encouraged to contact Menzer & Hill, P.A. if they believe their accounts are being excessively traded by their brokers or are subject to other abuses.

The attorneys at the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. are dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have suffered investment losses. 

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

A class action has been initiated in the Federal Court by 50 former clients of Bell Potter Securities over the company’s alleged conduct with respect to the purchase of shares in a Brisbane biotechnology company, Progen Pharmaceuticals.

The former clients are being represented by law firm Slater & Gordon, which has said it will be alleged to the court that Bell Potter manipulated the market in Progen shares and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct when it encouraged clients to buy the overvalued shares ahead of and subsequent to Bell Potter being a co-underwriter of a Progen capital raising.

Slater and Gordon solicitor Van Moulis said it was being alleged in the class action that reports published by Bell Potter analysts improperly inflated the value of Progen stock and were then used by brokers to promote the stock to clients.

He said investors were seeking compensation from Bell Potter for their share trading losses, legal costs plus interest.

Bell Potter has indicated it will be vigorously defending the claim.