Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Hagens Berman Announces Securities Fraud Class Action
Class Action | 2010/10/04 03:07

Hagens Berman announced today that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc. in U.S. District Court in Vermont.

Investors who purchased Green Mountain common stock between July 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010, and who wish to move to be a lead plaintiff, must file a motion by November 29, 2010. You may contact our attorneys below to discuss this matter.

Green Mountain and certain of its Officers are charged with making a series of materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that Green Mountain artificially inflated the Company's stock price during the Class Period by issuing inaccurate and unreliable financial statements, which were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules.

The Complaint also alleges that Green Mountain completed a sale of 8,566,649 shares of its common stock to Luigi Lavazza on August 28, 2010, for an aggregate purchase price of $250 million, despite the fact that the Company knew its reported financial statements were untrue and that it lacked adequate internal operational and financial control systems.

Following the close of trading on September 28, 2010, shareholders learned that the SEC had launched an inquiry into Green Mountain's revenue recognition, that it had been notified by the SEC of this investigation as early as September 20, 2010, and that the Company was expected to take a restatement charge in the near term -- rendering the Company's prior reported financial statements and reports unreliable, false and materially misleading.




Amaranth Case Becomes Class-Action Suit
Court Watch | 2010/10/04 01:10

A U.S. judge has awarded class-action status to a lawsuit filed by traders against Amaranth Advisors over the firm’s 2006 collapse following bad bets on natural gas prices, according to Reuters. On Monday, New York district judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that futures traders who bought, sold, or held natural gas futures or options with the $6.4 billion hedge fund between Feb. 16 and Sept. 28, 2006, could sue as a group in order to lower litigation costs and possibly increase their settlements.

In her ruling, Scheindlin stated that the case “involves more than 1,000 potential claimants who are asserting claims based on common issues,” and the judge noted, “Claimants likely have no interest in pursuing their own claims, which may be prohibitively small.” The traders allege that Amaranth manipulated prices of New York Mercantile Exchange natural gas futures contracts in violation of U.S. law. A lawyer for the firm declined to comment, and Amaranth founder Nicholas Maounis is among the defendants that remains in the case.




Crist donors denied class-action lawsuit
Legal Spotlight | 2010/09/26 20:40

A Florida judge has refused to grant class-action status to a lawsuit by contributors who claim Gov. Charlie Crist cheated them by becoming an independent.

The plaintiffs, Linda Morton of Naples and James Rood of Jacksonville, a former U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas, had also asked the court to freeze $7.5 million in Crist's campaign warchest, the Fort Myers News-Press reported. Senior Circuit Judge Jack Schoonover refused Thursday to convert the lawsuit to a class action and has twice refused to freeze any of Crist's funds.

Tom Grady, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said Crist, who is running as an independent for the U.S. Senate, could be hit with hundreds of small claims cases from individual donors.

Crist dropped his affiliation with the Republican Party several months ago after polls showed him losing the primary to Marco Rubio, a former speaker of the state House of Representatives and Tea Party favorite.





Rosen Law Firm Announces Filing of Securities Class Action
Class Action | 2010/09/26 20:39

The Rosen Law Firm today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Duoyuan Printing, Inc. during the period from November 6, 2009 through September 13, 2010 (the "Class Period").

To join the Duoyuan Printing class action, visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com, or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws by Duoyuan Printing and certain of its present and former officers and directors. Particularly, the complaint asserts that defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose (a) that the legitimacy of certain of the Company's expenses related to advertising and tradeshow costs could not be verified; (b) that Duoyuan Paper had improper relationships with certain vendors and distributors; (c) that, as a result, the Company's financial results were misstated during the Class Period; (d) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (e) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading.

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. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

You may access the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com to participate in the proposed class action.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 19, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com. You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com



Hyundai recalls 139,500 Sonatas in US on steering
Business | 2010/09/26 10:38

Hyundai Motor Co. said it is voluntarily recalling 139,500 Sonata sedans in the U.S. because of a manufacturing defect that could cause drivers to lose steering control.

The recall affects 2011 models built between Dec. 11, 2009 and Sept. 10, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration noted on its website Sunday. Some of the cars have steering column shafts with connections that may not have been tightened enough or were improperly assembled. As a result, the steering wheel could become separated from the column or a driver could lose the ability to properly steer the car.

The U.S. government had opened an investigation into possible steering problems in the vehicle in August. Hyundai, South Korea's top automaker, has said there have been no related injuries or crashes reported.

Owners of affected vehicles can go to their dealers for inspection. Dealers also will update power steering software. Owners may also call NHTSA at 888-327-4236 for more information.

The recall comes as automakers ramp up their focus on safety and quality control in the wake of Toyota Motor Corp.'s massive global recall last year over gas pedal and floor mat problems. In February, Hyundai announced a recall of about 47,000 Sonata midsize sedans, mostly sold in South Korea, to replace front door latches following a handful of customer complaints. The company said it had discovered a mechanical problem with the latches which, in rare instances, would not close properly.



Fuwei Films Announces Settlement of U.S. Securities Class Action
Class Action | 2010/09/20 08:37

Fuwei Films (Holdings) Co., Ltd., a manufacturer and distributor of high-quality BOPET plastic film located in China, today announced that it has entered into a final settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in a putative securities class action that has been pending in federal district court in New York (the "Action").

As previously disclosed, the parties reached a settlement in principle of the Action on June 24, 2010. In the Action, plaintiffs assert claims against Fuwei Films, certain of its present and former officers, directors, and shareholders, and the underwriters for Fuwei Films' December 19, 2006 initial public offering, alleging that the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained materially false and misleading information in violation of federal securities laws.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement and subject to the Court's approval, Plaintiffs have agreed to accept US$2.15 million in full and final settlement of all claims they have or may have against the Company, certain of its present and former officers, directors, and shareholders, and the underwriters. Fuwei Films has agreed to contribute US$1 million towards the settlement. The signed settlement agreement has been submitted to the Court for approval.

The Company's management continues to believe that plaintiffs' allegations are without merit. However, in recognition of the attendant risks and costs of continued litigation, and the benefits of resolving the same, the Board of Directors has unanimously consented to settle this case. As of June 30, 2010, the Company accrued US$1 million liability in connection with this litigation excluding defense costs.



Egg Recall Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Two Farms
Class Action | 2010/09/20 08:35

A salmonella food poisoning class action lawsuit has been filed against two farms that allegedly sold millions of contaminated eggs that have sickened hundreds of people throughout the United States. 
The egg recall lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago last week on behalf of six plaintiffs from Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New York and Mississippi. The lawsuit seeks class action status to represent all people who bought or fell ill after eating eggs from Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms in Iowa.

Last month, the two companies had to recall more than half a billion eggs nationwide due to salmonella contamination. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that at least 1,519 people have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning from the eggs, but it is likely that the true number of food poisoning cases is much higher since most illnesses are never reported.

The egg farms have long been plagued by problems, which have only come to light in the aftermath of the egg recall. The companies have been cited numerous times in the past due to non-compliance with a variety of federal regulations. A congressional hearing has been scheduled for next week before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who say that U.S. Congress investigators found that Wright County Egg found salmonella in 426 tests of its eggs between 2008 and 2010.

The lawsuit accuses the company of negligence and failing to meet federal regulations.

Salmonella is a type of bacteria that attacks the gastrointestinal tract, causing mild to severe food poisoning. For most healthy adults, symptoms of food poisoning from salmonella typically resolve after a few days or weeks. However, young children, the elderly, and individuals with compromised immune systems have an increased risk of suffering severe food poisoning after ingesting the bacteria. If not properly treated, some cases of salmonella food poisoning can lead to hospitalization, dehydration or death.

Both Hillandale Farms and Wright County Egg share some of the same suppliers, and while contaminated chicken feed has been found at both farms, the FDA has yet to determine that the feed was the source of the salmonella contamination.



[PREV] [1] ..[356][357][358][359][360][361][362][363][364].. [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