Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action Against Biomimetic Therapeutics
Class Action | 2011/07/07 10:00

Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. ("BMTI" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased BMTI securities from October 14, 2009 through May 11, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

BMTI's product, Augment(TM) Bone Graft ("Augment"), is a fully synthetic, off-the-shelf bone growth factor product for the treatment of bone defects and injuries. The Company's primary focus is obtaining market approval for Augment, and preparing for the anticipated commercial launch of Augment in the United States, the European Union and Australia.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants conditioned investors to believe that FDA approval of Augment would be forthcoming through a host of materially false and misleading statements regarding the status of Augment's ongoing clinical studies, and the safety and efficacy of the Company's product.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding: (a) the Company's business, operations, management, future business prospects and the intrinsic value of BMTI's common stock; (b) the safety and efficacy of Augment and its prospects for FDA approval; and (c) the woeful inadequacies of Augment's clinical trials. As a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 10, 2011, the FDA published briefing documents on Augment that were critical of Augment's clinical trial, stating the "FDA still has clinical concerns with the safety and overall risk/benefit of the device at this time, primarily due to the unanswered question of safety in regards to the potential for cancer formation versus an unproven benefit in the current standard for care."

On this news, BMTI's stock price plummeted approximately $4.73 or over 35% and closed at $8.66 on unusually heavy volume.

On May 13, 2011, BMTI disclosed that the FDA Panel voted by a narrow margin of 10-8 in favor of Augment's efficacy, making it highly unlikely that the device will receive FDA approval without requiring additional trials, substantially delaying the launch of the product.

As a result of the news regarding the narrow Panel vote, BMTI shares declined nearly 12% or $1.095 and closed at $8.105.

If you are a shareholder who purchased BMTI securities during the Class Period, you have until September 6, 2011 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.



Lawyer sentenced in insider trading scheme in NYC
Breaking Legal News | 2011/07/07 09:58
A New Jersey lawyer was sentenced Thursday to 2 1/2 years in prison for his role in a hedge fund insider trading scheme as the judge said it was important to send a message of deterrence to Wall Street and to lawyers nationwide.

Arthur Cutillo teamed with another lawyer at a prominent Manhattan law firm to provide tips about mergers and acquisitions of public companies to friends trading stocks professionally.

Cutillo must report to prison in September. U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan also ordered the 34-year-old Newark, N.J., resident to forfeit $378,608, which represents a portion of the roughly $7 million that authorities estimate was illegally made by traders as a result of inside information from a variety of sources in the case.

Cutillo, who apologized before he was sentenced, was among those arrested in 2009 when U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara unveiled what he said was the biggest hedge fund insider trading case in history.

After the sentence was announced, Bharara said: "With today's sentence, he now joins a growing group of privileged professionals who are paying a high price for insider trading."

Cutillo admitted providing tips to a former college friend in 2007 and 2008 about secrets he learned at the international firm Ropes & Gray. In return, he received $32,500 in cash, part of $100,000 paid to Cutillo and another Ropes & Gray lawyer in return for stock tips.

The prosecution also resulted in the conviction of Raj Rajaratnam, a one-time billionaire who the government said made tens of millions of dollars through inside information provided by longtime friends carrying secrets about public companies.

Sullivan cited Cutillo's challenging family circumstances, including two children with special needs, as reasons that he did not boost the sentence beyond the minimum recommended in a plea deal with prosecutors.



Borrowers sue over apparent loan mod mishaps
Breaking Legal News | 2011/07/05 09:27
It seemed Maria Campusano's financial problems were behind her when the mortgage on her Victorian home in a Massachusetts mill town was chopped by hundreds of dollars a month.

She soon learned that her troubles had just begun.

Weeks after making her first payment under the new rate, the school district staffer began receiving past-due notices, documents showing wildly inaccurate loan balances and letters threatening foreclosure. She now fears she'll lose her home.

"How can they take away what I have worked so hard for?" Campusano said.

Campusano is one of two named plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging breach of contract by Bank of America NA and subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing LP.

The suit, which was filed in Los Angeles federal court because BAC is located in nearby Calabasas, is among a growing number of legal complaints accusing banks of disregarding what should be binding agreements to reduce the monthly mortgage payments of troubled borrowers.

The suits involve permanent modifications through the U.S. Treasury-administered Home Affordable Modification Program, which offers incentives to loan servicers who extend modifications, as well as so-called proprietary modifications, which banks offer independently of the government guidelines.

They represent a new wave of complaints against banks that have already weathered years of criticism for their reluctance to modify loans and for foreclosing on borrowers after offering them trial modifications.



14.5 Million Dollar Jury Verdict Awarded Against State Farm Insurance
Court Watch | 2011/07/04 00:08
A six-week trial in Hamilton County Court ended yesterday afternoon with the award of a $14.5 million jury verdict for Joseph Radcliff and his restoration company, CPM Construction of Indiana, against State Farm Insurance.

State Farm had filed suit for insurance fraud and RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) claims against Radcliff and CPM.  The case arose out of work done by Radcliff and CPM following the April 2006 hailstorm.  Radcliff and CPM’s allegations were that after State Farm received negative publicity in the Indianapolis media for denying hail damage claims, State Farm made unfounded claims of fraud against Radcliff and instigated the filing of felony charges against him.  Those charges were dismissed by the Marion County Prosecutor, but the negative publicity resulted in Radcliff’s personal reputation and business being destroyed.

Not only did the jury find that State Farm’s claims against Radcliff were baseless, but they also found that the Radcliff’s allegations of being defamed by State Farm were true. The jury ordered State Farm to pay Radcliff $14.5 million.

Radcliff was represented by Will Riley, lead trial counsel of the law firm Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC along with attorneys Joe Williams, James Piatt and Jamie Kendall of the same firm and Mark McKinzie, Partner in the law firm Riley Bennett & Egloff LLP.

Riley stated, “It was a tribute to the American jury system that one man can take on the largest insurance company in the nation and win.”  McKinzie agreed, stating “This sends a strong signal to Bloomington, Illinois that Hoosiers will not put up with this sort of conduct.” Radcliff commented “I am grateful to those who believed in me and helped me get the true facts before the jury and to the jury for giving me, and my failed company, justice.”

Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC is a law firm known for its representation of clients in complex litigation. Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP is a law firm known for advising and representing businesses and their owners in various litigation matters.







Mich. man sues, wants Chevron stock at '04 price
Breaking Legal News | 2011/07/04 00:07
A former lawyer intrigued by the global demand for energy says he chose to invest $100,000 in oil giant Chevron Corp. back in 2004, a smart stock bet that now would have doubled seven years later. '

But Perry Christy has a big problem: He says Chevron's stock agent never deducted money from his bank account. As a result, he has no records to show he actually owns a certain number of shares.

So Christy, 69, is suing Chevron and Mellon Investor Services and seeking an extraordinary remedy. He wants a federal judge to declare that he should be credited with buying the stock at a June 2004 price, plus any additional shares that would have piled up by reinvesting dividends. Then he'll pay $100,000.

Based on the terrific rise in San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron's stock, it would be like winning the lottery—and then buying a ticket.

"There was some kind of mix-up on the day I placed the order," Christy insisted in an interview at his home in the Detroit suburb of Northville. "Whether mechanical or electronic, I don't think we'll ever know. But it's their screw-up. When you deal with any large bureaucracy, people are focused on their own narrow niche."

After more than a year in court, Chevron and Mellon smell a scam and want the case dismissed, even suggesting that Christy's story of a genuine yet botched investment simply is a lie.





Former Wyoming governor joins law firm
Law Center | 2011/07/03 11:07
Former Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal has joined the international law firm of Crowell & Moring as senior counsel.

Freudenthal says in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that the firm will open an office in Cheyenne, where he will be based. He will work for the firm's Environment and Natural Resources Group.

He says he will advise clients on issues that he handled during his two terms as governor, including minerals, natural resources development and environmental permitting.

Freudenthal says he will continue to teach at the University of Wyoming College of Law and serve on the Arch Coal Inc. board of directors.

Crowell & Moring has nearly 500 lawyers with offices in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, London, Brussels and elsewhere.



Administration supports lesbian employee's case
Human Rights | 2011/07/02 00:08
In a strongly worded legal brief, the Obama administration has said the federal act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman was motivated by hostility toward gays and lesbians and is unconstitutional.

The brief was filed Friday in federal court in San Francisco in support of a lesbian federal employee's lawsuit claiming the government wrongly denied health insurance coverage to her same-sex spouse.

The Justice Department says Karen Golinski's suit should not be dismissed because the law under which her spouse was denied benefits — the Defense of Marriage Act — violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

"The official legislative record makes plain that DOMA Section 3 was motivated in large part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and their intimate relationships, and Congress identified no other interest that is materially advanced by Section 3," the brief reads, referring to the section in the act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Though the administration has previously said it will not defend the marriage act, the brief is the first court filing in which it urges the court to find the law unconstitutional, said Tobias Barrington Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.




[PREV] [1] ..[328][329][330][331][332][333][334][335][336].. [1187] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
Florida Attorney General Ash..
Americans’ trust in nation..
Trump asks the Supreme Court..
Rudy Giuliani is in contempt..
Small businesses brace thems..
Appeals court overturns ex-4..
Amazon workers strike at mul..
TikTok asks Supreme Court to..
Supreme Court rejects Wiscon..
US inflation ticked up last ..
Court seems reluctant to blo..
Court will hear arguments ov..
Romanian court orders a reco..
Court backs Texas over razor..
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..


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.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design