|
|
|
Mom pleads guilty to forcing beer on children
Criminal Law |
2011/10/21 09:26
|
A Connecticut mother has pleaded guilty to charges that she forced her 4-year-old son to drink beer and gave her 10-month-old daughter beer and cocaine.
The Connecticut Post reports Juliette Dunn, of Bridgeport, pleaded guilty Wednesday to risk of injury to a child under the Alford Doctrine, where the defendant doesn't agree to the facts but agrees the state has enough evidence to win a conviction.
A companion, 33-year-old Lisa Jefferson, pleaded guilty to the same charges.
Police say officers were waved down in June by a neighbor who complained that a woman was feeding children beer at a playground.
The children were turned over to the Department of Children and Families after 29-year-old Dunn's arrest. Custody hasn't been decided. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott+Scott LLP Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/10/20 10:33
|
On October 19, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint against K-V Pharmaceutical Company and certain of the Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing the common stock of K-V between February 14, 2011 and April 4, 2011, inclusive.
If you purchased the common stock of K-V during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. Any member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott
scottlaw@scott-scott.com
http://www.scott-scott.com/cases/new/securities-fraud-litigation-1533-k-v-pharmaceutical-company-kv-a.html
The complaint filed in the action charges that during the brief Class Period, the Company issued false and misleading statements claiming the Food and Drug Administration had granted K-V the exclusive distribution rights over its "Makena," a drug compound that had previously been prescribed by physicians for decades to prevent miscarriages, and that the agency would enforce those rights by preventing K-V's competitors from distributing generic compounds of Makena. The complaint also alleges that defendants told investors K-V's Makena distribution program was designed to "expand access" to the drug compound, including to low-income and other at-risk groups, while concealing that the $1,500 list price K-V was charging would actually reduce availability of the drug compound to physicians and their patients. As a result, based on a fundamental misperception of K-V's sales and earnings potential, the complaint charges that K-V's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, allowing K-V to sell $200 million worth of senior secured notes, with the proceeds used in large part to pay down the Company's debts.
The complaint alleges that the truth began to come to light on March 17, 2011, when two U.S. Senators publicly questioned the bona fides of K-V's distribution program, stating "the financial assistance is not sufficient and does not extend to certain groups of women," and so that in reality, "KV Pharmaceutical's actions will result in diminished access to appropriate health care for women and result in increased preterm births." It is alleged that this partial disclosure caused K-V's stock price to fall precipitously, removing some of the stock inflation. Then, following the FDA's own March 30, 2011 statement that the agency did "not intend to take enforcement action against" K-V's competitors for distributing the generic version of K-V's Makena, K-V's stock fell further on extremely high trading volume. Finally, following K-V's April 1, 2011 disclosure that K-V was reducing Makena's list price by nearly 55% to $690 per injection -- versus the previous list price of $1,500 -- the market learned on April 4, 2011 that many physicians would never prescribe Makena to their patients due to flaws in the distribution program. On this news, K-V's stock price fell an additional 9.5% in a single trading session.
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court orders new trial for convicted Cass County killer
Court Watch |
2011/10/20 09:27
|
The 6th District Court of Appeals in Texarkana has ordered a new trial for a Cass County man convicted of killing his wife.
The Texarkana Gazette reports that the court on Wednesday granted 50-year-old David Len Moulton's request for a new trial.
Moulton was convicted and sentenced to 60 years in prison in 2010 of the 2004 death of Rebecca Moulton. Her body was found in a pond on the couple's property in Atlanta, Texas. A cause of death could not be determined.
The appeals court agreed with arguments by defense attorney Jason Horton that the jury was given an improper instruction. The instruction said jurors could convict Moulton if they determined he asphyxiated his wife by unknown means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senate rejects GOP effort on terrorist trials
Law Center |
2011/10/20 09:26
|
The Senate voted early Friday to reject a Republican effort to prohibit the United States from prosecuting foreign terrorist suspects in civilian courts, handing a victory to President Barack Obama.
By 52-47, senators turned aside a proposal by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (AY-aht), R-N.H., that would have forced such trials to occur before military tribunals or commissions. The Obama administration has fought to continue bringing such cases in federal courts, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Attorney General Eric Holder writing Senate leaders on Thursday that the measure would deprive them of a potent weapon against terrorism and increase the risk of terrorists escaping justice.
Obama has had numerous clashes with Congress over the handling of war on terror detainees. Congress has voted to prevent the transfer of detainees from the naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the U.S. Obama has sought to close that detention facility but has been opposed by Republicans and some Democratic lawmakers.
Ayotte said it would be dangerous to let terrorists exercise the protections against self-incrimination and other rights of civilian courts that they might use to avoid surrendering critical information to investigators. Republicans cited last November's acquittal by a federal jury in New York of all but one of hundreds of charges brought against Ahmed Ghailani for his role in destroying two U.S. embassies in Africa, in which 224 people were killed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2011/10/17 09:56
|
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is investigating potential securities law violations as alleged in a securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Imperial Holdings, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering on or about February 7, 2011 through September 27, 2011, inclusive.
Imperial Holdings shareholders, or individuals with information relating to this investigation, who wish to learn more about the action should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.
Background on the Imperial Holdings Securities Class Litigation
The action is brought against Imperial Holdings, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the IPO for violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Imperial Holdings is a specialty finance company that focuses on providing premium financing for individual life insurance policies.
The action alleges that the Company’s registration statement and prospectus for the IPO, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that Imperial Holdings had engaged in wrongdoing with respect to its life insurance finance business that would expose the Company and certain of its employees to government investigations.
On September 27, 2011, Imperial Holdings announced that federal investigators had served the Company with a search warrant and that it and certain of its employees, including its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its President and Chief Operating Officer, were under investigation in connection with the Company’s life insurance business. In response to this announcement and news of the raid on the Company's headquarters, the price of Imperial Holdings stock declined from $6.30 per share to close at $2.19 per share on September 28, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last nine consecutive years. For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm’s representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brower Piven Announces Investigation of El Paso Corp.
Legal Marketing |
2011/10/17 02:56
|
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty to current shareholders of El Paso Corporation and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of El Paso relating to the proposed acquisition of the company by Kinder Morgan, Inc. The firm’s investigation seeks to determine whether El Paso’s Board breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value.
On October 16, 2011, El Paso and KMI jointly announced that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement whereby KMI will acquire all outstanding shares of El Paso for $26.87 per share based on the closing prices of each of the companies on October 14, 2011. The joint press release stated that the agreement provides that El Paso shareholders will receive for each of their shares $14.65 in cash plus 0.4187 KMI shares and 0.640 KMI warrants with a five-year term exercisable at $40.00 per share.
According to the joint press release, while under all circumstances El Paso shareholders will receive 0.640 KMI warrants per El Paso share held, subject to proration, El Paso shareholders will be able to elect, for each El Paso share held, either (i) $25.91 in cash, (ii) 0.9635 shares of KMI common stock, or (iii) $14.65 in cash plus 0.4187 shares of KMI common stock. According to the joint release, El Paso’s board, two members of which will join the KMI board after the transaction closes, has agreed not to solicit competing transactions. Further, under certain circumstances, according to the companies, KMI will receive a termination fee of $650 million, or over $0.90 per El Paso share, from El Paso. According to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a price target for El Paso of $28 per share.
If you own El Paso common stock and would like to learn more about the investigation being conducted by Brower Piven, you may email or call Brower Piven, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact Brower Piven by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com, by calling 410/415-6616, or at Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153.
Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating securities and other class action cases of over 60 years.
hoffman@browerpiven.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to hear bid to sue Shell for Nigerian abuses
Breaking Legal News |
2011/10/17 01:56
|
The Supreme Court said Monday it will use a dispute between Nigerian villagers and oil giant Royal Dutch Shell to decide whether corporations may be held liable in U.S. courts for alleged human rights abuses overseas.
The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling in favor of Shell. The case centers on the 222-year-old Alien Tort Statute that has been increasingly used in recent years to sue corporations for alleged abuses abroad.
The villagers argue Shell was complicit in torture and other crimes against humanity in the country's oil-rich Ogoni region in the Niger Delta.
A divided panel of federal appeals court judges in New York said the 18th century law may not be used against corporations. More recently, appellate judges in Washington said it could.
In a second case the court agreed to hear, the justices will weigh whether the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1992 can be invoked against organizations, or only individuals.
The sons and widow of Azzam Rahim have filed a civil lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Palestinian-born Rahim was a naturalized U.S. citizen who was beaten and died in the custody of Palestinian intelligence officers in Jericho in 1995. Three officers were jailed for their role in the case, according to a State Department report.
But when Rahim's relatives sought money damages for his death, the federal appeals court in Washington said they could not use the 1992 law to go after the Palestinian organizations. The law may be applied only to "natural persons," the appeals court said.
The Nigerians' lawsuit stems from alleged human rights violations between 1992 and 1995. The suit claims that Shell was eager to stop protests about continuing oil exploration in the area and was complicit in Nigerian government actions that included fatal shootings, rapes, beatings, arrests and property destruction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
