Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on October 26, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. common stock between August 27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges OmniVision and certain of its officers with 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, the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that the Company had concealed the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple Inc. ("Apple") to supply imaging sensors for Apple's celebrated iPhone.

OmniVision is a designer and manufacturer of image sensors that are used in digital cameras to convert optical images into electronic signals. OmniVision is one of the leading suppliers of complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors ("CMOS") sensors used in mobile telephones. The Complaint alleges that OmniVision failed to disclose that: (a) it had lost its lucrative, high-profile, and exclusive contract with Apple; (b) competition was eroding its "leadership position" in the smartphone industry; (c) delays in the development of its 8-megapixel product line were threatening its prospects; and (d) it lacked a reasonable basis for its statements about its bright prospects in the smartphone market.

On August 25, 2011, OmniVision announced its results for the fiscal first quarter of 2012 and provided guidance for the fiscal second quarter of 2012 that was well below analyst expectations. The Company also disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-megapixel product line. Based on the Company's disappointing guidance, analysts recognized that OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new, fifth generation iPhone--the iPhone 4S--set for release in the fall of 2011. As a result of these revelations, OmniVision's stock declined $7.55 per share, or 30.4 percent, to close at $17.27 per share on August 26, 2011 on extraordinary trading volume.

On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.

On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm.

Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country's premier law firms representing institutional investors in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for more than 45 years, seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.

The epicenter of the fight over the patchwork of immigration laws in the United States is not Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico and became a common site for boycotts. Nor was it any of the four states that were next to pass their own crackdowns.

No, the case that's likely to be the first sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court comes from the Deep South state of Alabama, where the nation's strictest immigration law has resurrected ugly images from the state's days as the nation's battleground for civil rights a half-century ago.

And Alabama's jump to the forefront says as much about the country's evolving demographics as it does the nation's collective memory of the state's sometimes violent path to desegregation.

With the failure of Congress in recent years to pass comprehensive federal immigration legislation, Arizona, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina and Indiana have passed their own. But supporters and opponents alike agree none contained provisions as strict as those passed in Alabama, among them one that required schools to check students' immigration status. That provision, which has been temporarily blocked, would allow the Supreme Court to reconsider a decision that said a kindergarten to high school education must be provided to illegal immigrants.

The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a ruling that 12-foot-high crosses along Utah highways in honor of dead state troopers violate the Constitution.

The justices voted 8-1 Monday to reject an appeal from Utah and a state troopers' group that wanted the court to throw out the ruling and take a more permissive view of religious symbols on public land.

Since 1998, the private Utah Highway Patrol Association has paid for and erected more than a dozen memorial crosses, most of them on state land. Texas-based American Atheists Inc. and three of its Utah members sued the state in 2005.

The federal appeals court in Denver said the crosses were an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity by the Utah state government.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 19-page opinion dissenting from Monday's order. Thomas said the case offered the court the opportunity to clear up confusion over its approach to disputes over the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, the prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion.

A New Jersey man who walked out of a San Francisco gallery with a pencil sketch by Pablo Picasso worth $275,000 pleaded guilty to grand theft Thursday.

Workers at the Weinstein Gallery said Mark Lugo brazenly snatched the drawing, called "Tete de Femme" (Head of a Woman), from a wall of their gallery on July 5. Lugo then walked down the street and got into a cab with the sketch under his arm.

But quick police work, video surveillance cameras and an alert taxi driver led to his arrest within 24 hours.

When investigators searched Lugo's apartment in Hoboken, N.J., they uncovered a treasure trove of stolen art worth some $430,000.

Lugo, 30, pleaded guilty to grand theft in the San Francisco case. Under terms of a plea deal, prosecutors agreed to drop other charges, including burglary. The deal calls allows for Lugo to be released on his sentencing date, Nov. 21, after getting credit for the time he has already served.

His attorney, Douglas Horngrad, said Lugo would then be extradited to New York to face similar charges in art heists there.

A Navy ship commander is facing a military court hearing in San Diego Friday on accusations of sexually assaulting two women on his crew.

Cmdr. Jay Wylie will undergo a general court-martial, the military court reserved for the most serious offenses, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Wylie is the former skipper of the Everett, Wash.-based destroyer USS Momsen.

Wylie's attorney, Jeremiah Sullivan, wouldn't say Thursday what kind of plea his client will enter but told the newspaper that Wylie will "take full responsibility for his actions."

According to the Navy, Wylie got drunk on two occasions and sexually assaulted the women.

The first incident alleges that on New Year's Eve, Wylie pinned a junior female officer, tried to kiss her and assaulted her with his hand up her skirt.

A federal appeals court has rejected the Federal Aviation Administration's ruling that the Cape Wind project's turbines present "no hazard" to aviation, overturning a vital clearance for the nation's first offshore wind farm.

A decision Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the FAA didn't adequately determine whether the planned 130 turbines, each 440 feet tall, would pose a danger to pilots flying by visual flight rules.

The court ordered the "no hazard" determinations vacated and remanded back to the FAA.

It also ruled that if the FAA found the project posed aviation risks, the U.S. Interior Department would likely revoke or modify the lease granted Cape Wind — the first granted to a U.S. offshore wind project.

The decision signals further delays for the project, which has struggled to find financing.