|
|
|
14 people arrested during Supreme Court protest
Court Watch |
2012/01/17 12:13
|
Fourteen people have been arrested at the Supreme Court for protesting the resumption of the use of the death penalty in the United States.
Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg announced the arrests soon after the high court began hearing oral arguments on Tuesday. Those who were arrested will likely be charged with illegally demonstrating at the Supreme Court. Such activities are banned on the court's plaza looking out toward the U.S. Capitol.
The protests are timed to mark the year of the 35th anniversary of the execution of Gary Gilmore, who protesters said was the first person executed under the Supreme Court's upholding of the death penalty in 1976.
Protesters say there have been 1,277 more executions since then, with at least three more scheduled for this month. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court lets tipped employees sue for more pay
Criminal Law |
2012/01/17 10:13
|
The Supreme Court will allow bartenders and servers who make part of their money from tips file lawsuits for more money when they do work that doesn't involve tips.
The high court refused to hear an appeal from Applebee's International, which wanted to overturn a lower court ruling.
Restaurants consider tips part of some employees' salary to get the pay up to the minimum wage. But if a worker spends 20% of the time doing general maintenance and preparation work, they currently get full minimum wage.
Gerald Fast and more than 5,500 other current and former servers and bartenders at Applebee's restaurants sued, saying that opening and closing restaurants, as well as cleaning and stocking, consumed significant work time and Applebee's should pay them additional wages.
The lower courts refused to dismiss the complaint and the high court agreed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2012/01/16 09:34
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Netflix, Inc. common stock during the period between December 20, 2010 and October 24, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/netflix. Any member of the putative 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.
The complaint charges Netflix and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netflix is a subscription service that streams television shows and movies over the Internet, and in the United States subscribers can have DVDs delivered to their homes.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and its contracts with content providers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Netflix’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011. While Netflix stock was inflated (partially by Netflix buying back its own stock), Company insiders were selling 388,661 shares of their own Netflix stock for proceeds of $90.2 million.
On September 15, 2011, Netflix updated its third quarter 2011 guidance and revealed that it had lost a million subscribers due to its recently announced price increases becoming effective. On this news, Netflix stock fell nearly $40 per share to close at just under $170 per share. On September 19, 2011, the Company announced that, in an effort to offset skyrocketing costs and rapidly defecting customers, the Company would begin charging separately for its two services and had raised prices as much as 60%. Netflix stock dropped to $130 per share on this news. Then, on October 24, 2011, Netflix issued its third quarter 2011 shareholder letter, which reported a net loss of 810,000 U.S. subscribers, translating into a cumulative loss of 5.5 million subscribers. The subsequently filed Form 10-Q revealed that Netflix’s obligations for content over the coming years had skyrocketed to $3.5 billion, with $2.8 billion due within three years. These disclosures caused Netflix stock to collapse from $118.84 per share on October 24, 2011 to $80.86 per share on October 27, 2011, a 32% decline in three days and a 73% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) Netflix had short-term contracts with content providers and defendants were aware that the Company faced the choice of renegotiating the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates or not renewing them at all; (b) content providers were already demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically alter Netflix’s business; (c) defendants recognized that Netflix’s pricing would have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be incurring; and (d) Netflix was not on track to achieve the earnings forecasts made by and for the Company for 2011.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Netflix common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2012/01/16 09:33
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Chemed Corporation common stock during the period between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.
The complaint charges alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (1) that the Company engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services for patients who did not qualify for hospice and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the U.S. government; (2) that a significant portion of the Company’s hospice enrollments, revenues and earnings were the direct result of defendants’ scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services; (3) that, in a complaint filed under seal, a former VITAS manager had accused the Company of engaging in a Company-wide scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (4) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (5) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/che.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Law Firm Adds Top Rated Malpractice Attorney
Legal Business |
2012/01/16 09:33
|
The Michigan personal injury law firm of Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. is proud to announce the addition of medical malpractice attorney Randall M. Blau to our team of already award winning, experienced Michigan medical malpractice lawyers!
Partner and attorney, Lawrence J. Buckfire stated, “We could not be more pleased to add such an extraordinary medical malpractice lawyer to our law firm. Randall Blau was a perfect fit for the law firm, meeting the highest standards and quality that not only we, but our clients, require and expect to be a part of our team. Randall is a respected and highly reputable attorney throughout the State of Michigan and we are proud to have Randy join our law firm as our Michigan medical malpractice lawyer.”
Mr. Blau has obtained millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements for his injured clients. He specializes in medical malpractice, birth injuries, nursing home neglect, wrongful death, and automobile negligence cases. He is a member of the Michigan Association for Justice, the Oakland County Bar Association and the State Bar of Michigan. Randy has been an invited speaker at a variety of legal seminars, an invited member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and has been consistently listed in Who's Who in Law throughout his career.
Randall M. Blau earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Kalamazoo College in 1993 and his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Detroit School of Law in 1996. He is admitted to practice law in state and federal courts throughout Michigan and has handled cases in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota and Florida. He has obtained numerous settlements that have been listed in the Top Ten Settlements of the Year for the State of Michigan multiple times during the last decade.
Prior to joining Buckfire & Buckfire, Randall was a partner with Neuman Anderson, P.C. and senior litigation attorney with Southfield-based Maddin, Hauser, Wartell, Roth & Heller, P.C. He is an active member of a number of charitable and nonprofit organizations, and currently resides in West Bloomfield with his wife and two sons.
Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. handles all accident and injury cases, including auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, wrongful death cases, medical malpractice lawsuits, nursing home neglect cases, slip and fall cases, dog bite attack cases, and all other personal injury matters throughout the State of Michigan. Our Michigan personal injury attorneys are known for their meticulous case preparation-an approach that results in major verdicts and settlements for their clients. For more information on our personal injury law firm, please feel free to call our office, toll free at (800) 606-1717. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perry appeals judge's ruling on Va. primary ballot
Law Center |
2012/01/16 06:34
|
Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Sunday appealed a federal judge's refusal to add him and three other candidates to Virginia's Republican presidential primary ballot.
In a filing with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Perry's attorneys requested that the court order his name be placed on the ballot, or order that ballots not be printed or mailed before his appeal is considered.
Perry sued last month after failing to submit enough signatures to get on the Mach 6 ballot. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman joined Perry's lawsuit after also failing to qualify.
Only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul qualified for the primary ballot.
Virginia requires candidates to obtain the signatures of 10,000 registered voters, including 400 from each of the state's 11 congressional districts, to get on the ballot. State law also allows only Virginia residents to circulate petitions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio taking death penalty case to US Supreme Court
Breaking Legal News |
2012/01/15 09:32
|
Ohio's governor and attorney general said Sunday the state is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling that Ohio's protocol for carrying out the death penalty is constitutional.
Gov. John Kasich and Attorney General Mike DeWine said in a statement that the state wants the high court to reverse a federal appeals court decision to delay the Wednesday execution of Charles Lorraine.
Lorraine was condemned to death in the 1986 slaying of an elderly Trumbull County couple. But the federal appeals court said Friday his execution should be delayed to review changes Ohio has made in carrying out the death penalty.
Lorraine argued that Ohio broke its promise to adhere strictly to its execution procedures. But the state said that deviations from the procedures during the last execution were minor and that an inmate's rights would not be violated by changes, such as which official announces the start and finish times of an injection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
