|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung seeks iPhone, iPad sale ban in Dutch court
Breaking Legal News |
2011/09/24 09:41
|
Samsung asked a Dutch court Monday to slap an injunction on Apple Inc. to prevent it from selling iPhones and iPad tablets in the Netherlands, saying Apple does not have licenses to use 3G mobile technology in the devices.
The legal battle is the latest round in a series of claims and counterclaims of patent breaches by the rival technology heavyweights playing out in courtrooms around the world.
Samsung Electronics Co. lawyer Bas Berghuis told a civil judge at The Hague District Court that Apple "never bothered to ask about licenses" before it started selling 3G-enabled iPhones.
Apple lawyer Rutger Kleemans hit back by accusing Samsung of using the patent dispute to "hold Apple hostage" because of Apple's legal battles accusing Samsung of copying its iPhone and iPad designs.
"It's a holdup," Kleemans said. "Because Apple dared to take action against Samsung's copycat tactics."
Kleemans urged the court to reject the injunction request, saying the patents involved "are not designed to be used as a weapon against Apple."
No date was immediately given for a ruling.
Earlier this month, a court in Duesseldorf, Germany, ruled that Samsung cannot sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany because its design too closely resembled the iPad2. The ruling only applied to direct sales from the Samsung, meaning distributors who acquire the Tab 10.1 from abroad could resell them in Germany. Samsung said it would appeal that judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idaho inmates settle lawsuit over prison violence
Class Action |
2011/09/22 11:36
|
A potential class-action lawsuit against the nation's largest private prison company over allegations of violence at the Idaho Correctional Center has been settled in federal court.
The agreement between the inmates and Nashville, Tenn.-based Corrections Corporation of America was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Boise.
In it, CCA doesn't acknowledge the allegations but agrees to increase staffing, investigate all assaults and make other sweeping changes at the lockup south of Boise. If the company fails to make the changes, the inmates can ask the courts to force CCA to comply.
The inmates, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued last year on behalf of everyone incarcerated at the CCA-run state prison. They said the prison was so violent it was dubbed "Gladiator School," and that guards used inmate-on-inmate violence as a management tool and then denied prisoners medical care as a way to cover up the assaults.
CCA has denied all the allegations as part of the settlement, but the agreement is governed under a section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act which only applies in cases in which prisoners' constitutional rights have been violated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Mesothelioma Awareness Day 2011
Law Center |
2011/09/21 23:36
|
National Mesothelioma Awareness Day 2011 carries special meaning for New York-based Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., one of the nation's leading personal injury law firms, because so many of its clients are mesothelioma victims on whose behalf hundreds of millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements have been won.
Arthur Luxenberg, founding partner of Weitz & Luxenberg, explains that mesothelioma is a relatively rare form of cancer that strikes as many as 3,000 Americans each year.
"A common cause of mesothelioma is asbestos exposure," he says. "Victims tend to be electricians, plumbers, armed forces veterans -- anyone who worked with or around asbestos. The condition develops decades after exposure, but the disease can prove fatal within a year of diagnosis. At present, there is no cure. And to make matters worse, family members also often fall prey to mesothelioma as a result of secondary exposure to asbestos fibers carried into the home by the primary victim."
Weitz & Luxenberg has been able to play a pivotal role in the ongoing effort to compensate mesothelioma victims thanks to its extensive experience and vast resources.
"Mesothelioma awareness is an extremely serious issue, and we at Weitz & Luxenberg are grateful for the opportunity National Mesothalioma Awerness Day 2011 affords us to inform people about it, to build broader partnerships that hopefully can deliver more help to victims," says Luxenberg.
The disease -- which affects internal organs by attacking surrounding membranes -- receives less attention than it deserves, health advocates insist. Their raised voices helped convince Congress to acknowledge the problem of mesothelioma by proclaiming Sept. 26, 2011 National Mesothelioma Awareness Day.
About Weitz & Luxenberg
Founded in 1986 by attorneys Perry Weitz and Arthur Luxenberg, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., today ranks among the nation's leading law firms. It specializes in multiple litigation fields including: mesothelioma; defective medicine and devices; environmental pollutants; accidents; personal injury; and medical malpractice. Weitz & Luxenberg offers free legal consultation to injured parties by calling 1-800-476-6070 or by emailing clientrelations@weitzlux.com. More information is available at www.weitzlux.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Law Firm of Levi & Korsinsky Notifies Investors
Legal Marketing |
2011/09/21 13:36
|
Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division on behalf of purchasers of Penson Worldwide, Inc. common stock from February 20, 2011 through August 4, 2011.
Prior to and during the Class Period, Penson derived a material part of its revenue and income from interest it received on margin loans to customers for which its customers pledged collateral in return for such loans.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding and concealed from investors that, by at least the end of 2010, a) the Company had approximately $96-97 million in receivables ("Nonaccrual Receivables") of which approximately $43 million were collateralized by illiquid securities and therefore unlikely to be collected; b) the Company's Nonaccrual Receivables were materially overstated and should have been written down at least by the end of 2010; c) as a result, the Company's reported income and EBITDA were materially overstated; and d) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
If you are a member of the class and suffered a loss in Penson stock, you have until October 24, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information about your rights, contact Joseph Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit http://www.zlk.com/penson-worldwide-pnsn.html.
Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud and represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder litigation. For more information, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed below. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kona coffee dispute prompts class-action lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/09/20 23:37
|
A spat involving Safeway and Hawaii coffee growers is still brewing, even after the supermarket giant agreed to change labeling on its Kona blend coffee.
A $5 million class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Northern California claiming Safeway profited off the reputation of Kona coffee while selling an inferior product with very little Hawaii-grown coffee.
The lawsuit was filed Aug. 30, a day before Safeway's letter informing the Kona Coffee Farmers Association the company would change its packaging to reflect the percentage of Kona it contains. The farmers had called for a boycott of Safeway's 1,700 stores nationwide after a farmer saw the Kona blend for sale in a California store.
In an effort to protect a world-famous Hawaii product, the state's Board of Agriculture Chairman Russell Kokubun sent a letter to Safeway officials asking them to comply with a law here requiring labels to specify the percentage of Hawaii-grown coffee included in the blend. The law requires those blends have at least 10 percent Hawaii-grown coffee. But because Safeway's Kona blend isn't sold in any of the 19 Hawaii locations, Kokubun could only ask for voluntary compliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
