|
|
|
Ex-workers at Fla. foreclose firm get class action
Class Action |
2011/09/28 10:34
|
Hundreds of former employees at a shuttered South Florida foreclosure law firm have been permitted by a judge to pursue a class action lawsuit involving labor law violations.
A Miami federal judge this week approved class action status for the case against attorney David J. Stern. Stern's firm was one of the biggest handling foreclosures in Florida, but it collapsed amid investigations into so-called "robo-signing" of documents and other alleged irregularities.
Hundreds of Stern's employees were laid off. The lawsuit contends the firm did not follow federal labor laws when it began mass firings.
The case involves at least 700 of Stern's former workers. They are seeking back pay, benefit reimbursements and other damages.
Stern's lawyers say the layoffs were done properly because of unforeseen circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rentech Announces Final Court Approvals of Settlements
Class Action |
2011/09/28 10:33
|
Rentech, Inc. announced today that it has received final court approvals for the settlements of the securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits against the Company and a number of its current and former directors and officers. The lawsuits related to the Company’s restatement in December 2009 of certain of its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009. The Company believed that it was in the best interests of its stockholders to settle the matters at a reasonable cost to avoid potentially protracted and expensive litigation. The Company and the individual defendants have denied any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations contained in these lawsuits.
The settlement for the consolidated class action lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW) provides for a settlement fund of $1.8 million, from which plaintiffs' counsel will receive an award of attorneys fees and expenses. The settlements for the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:10-cv-0485-GHK-PJW) and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Andrew L. Tarr v. Dennis L. Yakobson, et al., LASC Master File No. BC430553) provide that the Company adopt certain governance practices, and pay (or cause its insurance carrier to pay) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses of $300,000. Over 90% of the aggregate securities class action and shareholder derivative settlement payments are covered by Rentech’s insurance carriers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Omnicare, Inc.
Legal Marketing |
2011/09/27 10:34
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Omnicare, Inc. (“Omnicare” or the “Company”) between January 10, 2007 and August 5, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Omnicare provides pharmaceuticals, and related pharmacy and ancillary services to long-term healthcare institutions. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Omnicare and certain of its executive officers misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse information concerning Omnicare’s business and financial condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement to the federal Medicare program, and to several state Medicaid programs, for services that did not conform with Medicare and Medicaid regulations, while repeatedly representing that Omnicare was operating in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The Complaint further alleges that Omnicare’s reported net sales and accounts receivable throughout the Class Period were artificially inflated as they included the proceeds of the nonconforming Medicare and Medicaid claims.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Omnicare common stock between January 10, 2007 and August 5, 2010, you have certain rights, and have until October 24, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, Toll Free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. Supreme Court takes payday loan case
Court Watch |
2011/09/26 09:42
|
The state Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Wisconsin law permits judges to determine when payday loan interest rates are too high.
The court will consider whether state statutes block judges from determining if a particular interest rate is unconscionable and, if they don't, what evidence would prove rates are too high.
The case stems from loans Jesica Mount of Onalaska secured from Payday Loan Stores of Wisconsin Inc. in 2008. According to court documents, annual interest rates on the loans varied from 446 percent to 1,338 percent.
The loan company filed a lawsuit against Mount after she failed to make her payments. Mount filed a counterclaim alleging the loans violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act because the rates were unconscionable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court hears challenge to health care law
Breaking Legal News |
2011/09/26 09:41
|
A conservative-leaning panel of federal appellate judges raised concerns about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul Friday, but suggested the challenge to it may be premature.
The arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington over a lawsuit against Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement focused on whether Congress overstepped its authority in requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014.
But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a former top aide to President George W. Bush who appointed him to the bench, said that he has a "major concern" that courts might not be able to rule on the law's constitutionality until 2015. That's because a federal law bars most challenges to tax-related legislation before the tax or penalty is paid.
A federal appeals court in Richmond cited that law in throwing out another challenge to the overhaul. Two other appeals courts have reached differing conclusions — one declaring the law unconstitutional and the other upholding it. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in and could possibly even decide to review the law before the Washington circuit issues an opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2011/09/26 09:41
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
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 plaintiffs’ 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/allostherapeutics. 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 Allos and its Board of Directors (the “Board”) with breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty under state law and the Board and AMAG with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Allos is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the development and commercialization of anti-cancer therapeutics.
The action arises from Allos and AMAG’s July 20, 2011 announcement that Allos had entered into a definitive merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) under which Allos would be acquired by AMAG in a transaction valued at approximately $260 million (the “Proposed Acquisition”). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Allos stockholders will receive a fixed ratio of 0.1282 shares of AMAG common stock for each share of Allos common stock held. The deal values Allos stock at $2.44 a share using AMAG’s prior closing price of $19.07. The complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition significantly undervalues Allos, as Allos shares traded as high as $4.21 as recently as January 12, 2011, and after the announcement of the Proposed Acquisition the price of AMAG common stock has fallen to $13.58 per share, giving the deal a real value of just $1.74 per Allos share.
The complaint further alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Acquisition, on August 22, 2011, defendants issued a materially false and misleading Preliminary Joint Proxy/Prospectus on Form S-4 (the “Proxy”). The Proxy, which recommends that Allos shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material information about the unfair sales process for the Company, conflicts of interest that corrupted the sales process, the unfair consideration offered in the Proposed Acquisition, and the actual intrinsic value of the Company on a stand-alone basis and as a merger partner for AMAG, in contravention of §§14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and/or defendants’ fiduciary duty of disclosure under state law.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all shareholders of Allos who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG (the “Class”). The plaintiffs are 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyers seek to stop Loughner's forced medication
Criminal Law |
2011/09/24 09:42
|
Lawyers for the Tucson shooting rampage suspect asked a federal court again Friday to stop his forced medication at a medical facility in a Missouri prison.
Jared Lee Loughner's lead attorney, Judy Clarke, wrote in an emergency motion that the ongoing forced medication of her client is unlawful. She said Loughner will suffer "irreparable harm" unless the prison is ordered to cease giving him a daily "four-drug cocktail," or at least start tapering him off it.
Loughner, 23, has been at the Springfield, Mo., facility since May 27 after he was found to be mentally unfit to stand trial. Experts have concluded he suffers from schizophrenia and are trying to restore his competency.
Loughner has pleaded not guilty to 49 charges stemming from the Jan. 8 shooting at a political event outside a northwest Tucson supermarket. The rampage left six people dead and 13 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who is still recovering.
Prison officials have forcibly medicated Loughner with psychotropic drugs after concluding he posed a danger at the facility. Federal prosecutors have previously argued Loughner should remain medicated because his mental and physical condition has been rapidly deteriorating.
Clarke said Loughner "has an exceptionally strong interest in not being executed." But she noted it is "no secret" that the government may seek the death penalty if the case is eventually tried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
