|
|
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP Secures $10 Million Settlement
Law Center |
2012/02/08 09:40
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP announced a nationwide class action settlement valued at $10 million with All Market, Inc., the leading manufacturer and seller of coconut water in the United States.
Coconut water is one of the fastest growing beverages sold in the United States. Vita Coco markets its coconut water as “super-hydrating,” “nutrient-packed,” “mega-electrolyte,” and healthy “super-water.” Labaton Sucharow filed a proposed nationwide class action, styled Fishbein et al., v. All Market Inc., No. 11-cv-05580, against the company after an independent study revealed that Vita Coco’s products do not contain the electrolyte levels indicated on the products’ labels. The class action complaint alleges that Vita Coco’s coconut water products are mislabeled and do not hydrate more effectively than less expensive sports drinks.
Kellie Lerner, one of the attorneys in the action, stated: “For the millions of consumers who pay for products that claim to improve their health, this settlement sends a message that companies will be held accountable when they exaggerate or misstate the health benefits of their products.”
Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York City and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country’s premier law firms representing institutional investors in class actions and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive or deceptive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for close to 50 years, seeking recovery of losses and the adoption of necessary corporate governance reforms to protect investors, businesses and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BofA investor lawsuit wins class-action status
Breaking Legal News |
2012/02/08 09:40
|
Investors suing Bank of America Corp won class-action status for their lawsuit accusing the bank of fraudulently misleading them about the 2008 takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co and the size of Merrill's losses and bonus payouts.
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel in Manhattan on Monday rejected the second-largest U.S. bank's argument that the investors could not prove they suffered losses by relying on materially misleading statements or omissions.
Among the other defendants who were also sued and opposed class certification were former Bank of America Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis, former Merrill Chief Executive John Thain, former Bank of America Chief Financial Officer Joe Price, and Bank of America's board of directors.
Lewis had won initial praise for saving Merrill from possible collapse when he agreed to buy it on September 15, 2008, the day Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc went bankrupt.
But investors later faulted the bank for not disclosing the scope of Merrill's soaring losses, which reached $15.84 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, before December 2008 shareholder votes on the merger. They also objected to Merrill's having paid $3.6 billion of bonuses despite the losses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Lawsuits Now Target Law Schools
Law Center |
2012/02/07 09:55
|
A threatened wave of class actions against American law schools became a reality last week after plaintiffs' lawyers sued a dozen more schools over their allegedly misleading use of salary and employment data. But this trend in "consumer protection" is potentially damaging, not only to U.S. law schools, but to higher education in general, said two attorneys for the national law firm LeClairRyan.
"If the goal of these suits is securing transparency on jobs data, then the plaintiffs and their counsel are going about this in entirely the wrong way," said veteran class action defense attorney Michael Haratz, a Newark-based partner in LeClairRyan's Business Litigation team. "While there is nothing wrong with working toward clear, consistent and coherent reporting standards, such matters are best addressed via the regulatory process—not by bending higher education to fit a consumerist paradigm more appropriate to a purchaser of traditional consumer goods."
The trend shows every sign of expanding to other institutions across the country, added Haratz. "According to a prominent legal journalist, for example, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers—someone who previously declared 2012 'the year of law school litigation'—hopes to sue up to 25 new schools every few months," he said.
The new complaints come in the wake of highly publicized class actions filed last year against Thomas M. Cooley Law School, New York Law School and Thomas Jefferson School of Law. The latest schools to be targeted reportedly are: Albany Law School, Brooklyn Law School, Hofstra Law School, Widener Law, Florida Coastal School of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, DePaul University College of Law, John Marshall Law School, California Western School of Law, Southwestern Law School, University of San Francisco School of Law, and Golden Gate University School of Law.
The complaints allege that U.S. law schools artificially boost enrollments by exaggerating or misrepresenting graduates' employment and salary statistics. "The problem with such litigation is that it runs contrary to the purpose and spirit underlying the class-action lawsuit as a vehicle for consumer redress," said Robert B. Smith a Boston-based LeClair Ryan partner and leader of the firm's Education Industry team. "Why? Because the consumerist paradigm does not fit higher education. Just as law degrees should not come with guarantees of 'gainful employment or your money back,' law students should not regard themselves as consumers entitled to same. After all, they are individuals with varying degrees of talent, motivation, discipline and intelligence. Their futures are their own responsibilities."
About LeClairRyan
As a trusted advisor, LeClairRyan provides business counsel and client representation in corporate law and litigation. In this role, the firm applies its knowledge, insight and skill to help clients achieve their business objectives while managing and minimizing their legal risks, difficulties and expenses. With offices in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C., the firm has approximately 350 attorneys representing a wide variety of clients throughout the nation. For more information about LeClairRyan, visit www.leclairryan.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Umeda LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/06 09:55
|
Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP, announces that the firm commenced a class action lawsuit on February 3, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between February 12, 2010 and December 15, 2011 (the "Class Period"). The action is against the Company and the Company's Chief Executive Officer for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
BioSante Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical Company focused on developing products for female sexual health and oncology. Over the last decade, BioSante has been in the process of developing LibiGel, a drug designed to improve the sex drive of women suffering from female sexual dysfunction, specifically hypoactive desire disorder.
The complaint alleges that beginning on February 12, 2010, the Company, along with its Chief Executive Officer, issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to investors about LibiGel's commercial viability, effectiveness, and market potential that caused shares of BioSante to trade at artificially high prices. Specifically, it is alleged that officials at BioSante boasted that clinical data demonstrated that LibiGel had a "statistically significant" effect on female patients treated with the product, and that LibiGel was "the most clinically advanced pharmaceutical product in the U.S." Additionally, it is alleged that BioSante and its Chief Executive Officer misled investors by routinely analogizing LibiGel's market potential to the $2 billion dollar market for male erectile drugs, often comparing LibiGel to products like "Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis."
Robbins Umeda LLP represents individual and institutional shareholders in derivative, direct, and class action lawsuits. The law firm's skilled litigation teams include former federal prosecutors, former defense counsel from top multinational corporate law firms, and career shareholder rights attorneys. Robbins Umeda LLP has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. For more information, please go to http://www.robbinsumeda.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/06 09:54
|
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Cablevision Systems Corporation between February 16, 2011 and October 28, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Cablevision and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that Cablevision was experiencing higher retention and advertising costs; (ii) that Cablevision was losing more video customers than expected, especially in the New York area -- the Company's main service area -- due to increased competition; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
On October 28, 2011, Cablevision announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2011, the period ended September 30, 2011. On that same day, Cablevision held a conference call with analysts and investors to discuss the earnings announcement and the Company's operations, including the Company's subscriber loss. In reaction to the Company's announcement, the price of Cablevision stock fell $2.17 per share, or 13%, to close at $15.14 per share.
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/cablevision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Palm Beach Construction Law Attorney
Business |
2012/02/05 09:54
|
Palm Beach Construction Law Attorney
Heitman Law Firm serves its clients by first comprehending the specific issues our clients face and then tailoring our representation to those specific needs. Construction law cases often involve legal, technical, engineering, design, constructability and scheduling issues. We speak the language of construction. We understand your business. We know how to read a set of plans. Our client service is based on the idea that the client should not be required to pay to
bring us up to speed on the construction issues. Instead, we make it our business to be ahead of the learning curve.
Our law firm's Florida construction law practice includes the following areas:
• Land Use Planning
• Permitting
• Bid Preparation
• Bid Protests
• Contract Drafting
• Contract Review
• Contract Negotiation
• Contract Administration
• Design-Build Contracts
• Contract Claims Preparation
• Contract Dispute Resolution
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
• Dispute Review Board Hearings
• Administrative Hearings
• We represent both domestic and international clients
• Private Construction Projects
• Public Construction Projects
• Projects Nationwide
• Design Professional Negligence
Heitman Law Firm combines experience and efficiency in construction law to render their clients high quality legal representation. With years of experience building real world construction projects, Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law and efficiently resolve construction disputes. Visit www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org for more information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murray Frank LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/03 10:01
|
Murray Frank LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 12 Civ. 0672) on behalf of all individuals and institutions who purchased securities of GLG Life Tech Corporation during the period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011 (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements about or knew but failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s original equipment manufacturers were experiencing production issues that impacted the packaging and appearance quality of its products; (2) consumers were responding poorly to the Company’s AN0C and stevia products; and/or (3) the Company would not meet its earnings projections.
On October 6, 2011, GLG Life Tech issued a press release disclosing for the first time a negative outlook concerning its AN0C and stevia products. On the news, the Company’s stock price dropped by 42% from a close of $3.45 per share on October 5, 2011 to a close of $1.99 per share on October 6, 2011.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the period ending September 30, 2011. Revenue for the period was $1.7 million, versus revenue of $20.9 million for the same period in the previous year. EBITDA for the period was negative $8.8 million, versus EBITDA of $6.1 million for the same period in the previous year. Following its announcement of these disappointing results, the Company’s management declined to provide any further formal guidance on revenues, EBITDA, or capital expenditures. On the news, the Company’s stock price continued to drop, from a close of $2.32 per share on November 11, 2011 (the last trading day before the announcement) to a close of $2.01 on November 14, 2011.
If you purchased GLG Life Tech securities during the period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011, you may move the Court, not later than February 13, 2012, to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included in the class.
www.murrayfrank.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
