Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Class-action lawsuit filed against Radian
Class Action | 2007/08/16 08:04

A class-action shareholder lawsuit has been filed against Radian Group, the mortgage insurer whose endangered half-billion dollar stake in a subprime mortgage investor has sunk its stock price and put a planned merger with rival MGIC Investment Corp. in doubt. The U.S. District Court suit, filed in Philadelphia by San Francisco-based law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, is on behalf of investors who bought securities between Jan. 23 and July 31, the firm said late Wednesday.

Among other things, the suit stated, Radian of Philadelphia failed to disclose that its $518 million investment in Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, known as C-BASS, was materially impaired and quickly declining in value, and that it overstated financial results by failing to write-down that investment in a timely fashion.

Radian (NYSE:RDN) has said that the entirety of its investment in C-BASS may be lost. Since Radian issued a statement July 30 about the investment, its stock price has tumbled far below its pre-announcement price of about $40. It was trading down 3 percent Thursday at $16.14.

MGIC (NYSE:MTG) of Milwaukee has said it is not obligated to go through with the merger but Radian has disputed that. The stock deal was originally valued at nearly $4.9 billion, but shares of both companies have lost more than half their value since it was announced Feb. 6. The deal called for an exchange of shares with Radian's stock valued at $60.78 per share



White House backs banks in Supreme Court case
Breaking Legal News | 2007/08/16 07:55
The brief by the U.S. solicitor general contradicts a brief filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which argued for shareholders' rights to sue those third parties. "Allowing liability for a primary violation under the circumstances presented here would constitute a sweeping expansion of the judicially inferred private right of action" under securities law, wrote Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Such a move could expose customers, vendors and others to "billions of dollars in liability when issuers of securities make misstatements to the market," he wrote.
Clement wrote that allowing third parties to be sued would "vastly expand liability in unpredictable ways."

The case, Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., has attracted considerable interest from lawmakers and industry associations. On Tuesday, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., asked President Bush to back the SEC's position.

Meanwhile, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association President Marc Lackritz said allowing third parties to be held liable would result in skyrocketing litigation costs for companies.

"Investors already receive substantial protections under the law, and the Securities and Exchange Commission and other securities regulators are already armed with all the necessary regulatory tools to recoup lost money for investors," Lackritz said.
Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a business trade group, had urged the court to reject the expanded liability, known in legal terms as "scheme liability."

"Congress authorized the SEC to enforce securities laws against third parties and disburse funds to harmed investors," said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center.

"The Supreme Court should not upset that legislative decision by allowing class action lawyers to increase litigation risk and further hamper the competitiveness of American markets," Conrad said.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case in its fall term.


Ohio Republican leaving the House
Politics | 2007/08/16 07:43
Eight-term Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio will not seek re-election, GOP officials said Wednesday, making her the third prominent House Republican from the Midwest to announce retirement plans in recent days.

Pryce, 56, was her party's fourth-ranking leader before the GOP lost control in the 2006 election. She narrowly survived a challenge last fall from Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy.

Kilroy, a Franklin County commissioner, is running again in 2008, an election in which Democratic hopes run high because of voter disenchantment with President Bush and the Iraq war.

Democrats says they also will compete strongly for the seats being vacated by former Speaker Dennis Hastert and seven-term Rep. Ray LaHood, both of Illinois.

Top Republican officials in Ohio and Washington said she plans to step down when her term ends next year.

One of the officials said the decision was largely a family matter for Pryce, the single parent of an adopted child.

With Pryce's and Hastert's departures, only one of the top four House Republican leaders from the GOP-controlled 109th Congress appears likely to seek election next year: Roy Blunt of Missouri, the GOP whip. Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, stepped down last year.

Even before Pryce's plans became known, Democrats saw her Columbus-based district as among the most competitive held by a Republican. An open seat will be even more difficult for Republicans to defend, but party activists say they will do so, arguing that Democrats already failed once -- in 2006 -- when many factors were in their favor.

Doug Thornell, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said: "Mary Jo Kilroy came within 1,055 votes of winning last cycle, and we expect this race to provide us with a tremendous opportunity to strengthen our majority."



Class-action suit filed against Pall
Class Action | 2007/08/16 06:03

A Manhattan-based law firm has filed a class-action suit against Pall Corp., the manufacturer of high-tech filtration systems, which earlier this month said its financial statements dating to 1999 can no longer be relied upon and will have to be restated. Another law firm, in Hartford, Conn., Wednesday said it is seeking class-action status to file a suit against Pall, based in East Hills, and one of Long Island's largest employers.

The Manhattan law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed the class-action suit late Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, charging Pall and certain of its officers and directors with issuing "materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose" that the company was overstating its financial results by understating its tax liability.

Pat Iannucci, a Pall spokeswoman, said, "We intend to defend the action vigorously."

The class-action suit noted that Pall reported it could owe more than $130 million in taxes, exclusive of interest or penalties, and that its financial statements for the fiscal years 1999 through 2006 "should no longer be relied upon and that a restatement of some or all of those financial statements will be required."

Pall said after markets closed July 19 that the audit committee of its board of directors had begun an inquiry into possible material understatement of U.S. income tax payments, beginning with the fiscal year ended July 31, 1999.

Investors sent shares of Pall plummeting. The stock fell over 15 percent in unusually high volume, to $41.11. On Aug 2, Pall said that its financial statements for the fiscal years 1999 through 2006 should no longer be relied upon. Additionally, Pall said it could owe up to $130 million in back taxes. Shares fell another 3 percent, or $1.21, to $39.90.

Shares of Pall fell $1.17 yesterday, to close at $35.48. The stock is still up 6 percent this year.

The Hartford-based firm Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. said Wednesday it is seeking class-action status in regard to filing a suit against Pall, but that it has not yet filed any suit against the company.

The law firm said in an announcement that Pall has and certain of its officers and directors have "violated federal securities laws."

Pall manufacturers systems that filter impurities out of everything from beer to blood. It is Long Island's seventh-largest company, in terms of revenues, which last year were $2.2 billion.

The company has about 10,828 employees, including 750 on Long Island.

Pall has sold its headquarters building in East Hills to Lowes, the home improvement retailer. Lowes plans to lease the site back to Pall for two or three years while it seeks approval to build a store there. Pall ultimately plans to consolidate its operations at a smaller facility in Port Washington, which it intends to expand.



Brodsky & Smith, LLC Announces Settlement of Class Action
Breaking Legal News | 2007/08/16 05:05

Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a Court has preliminarily approved a class action settlement in TDH Partners v. The Ryland Group, Inc., et. al. involving all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the Ryland Group, Inc. (NYSE: RYL) ("RYLAND"), between October 3, 2003 and January 7, 2004, inclusive, ("the Settlement Class"). This case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Pursuant to a Court Order, a hearing will be held in this case (the "Action") on December 11, 2007 at 10:00 A.M. before United States District Judge Jane Boyle, at the United States Courthouse, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242, to determine: (1) whether the settlement of claims asserted in this Action in return for payment of One Million, Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00) in cash plus accrued interest (the "Settlement Fund"), from which all administrative expenses, taxes owed and Court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses will be paid, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate to the members of the Settlement Class; (2) whether the proposed plan of allocation for the Settlement Fund after payment of all administrative expenses, taxes owed and Court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable and adequate to the members of the Settlement Class; (3) whether and in what amount to approve an incentive award to the Lead Plaintiff and whether to approve the application of the Class' Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees not in excess of 33% and expenses not in excess of $150,000.00 should be approved; and (4) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated as of March 15, 2007 and filed with the Court.

Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of RYLAND during the period from October 3, 2003 through January 7, 2004, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), may be affected by the settlement of this Action, including the release and extinguishment of claims they may possess relating to the purchase or other acquisition of the common stock of RYLAND during the Settlement Class Period. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, eligible shareholders must establish their rights by mailing a Proof of Claim Form on or before November 15, 2007.

Shareholders who desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class must file a request for exclusion by November 15, 2007, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action.



Sonoma County Court workers file labor complaint
Legal Business | 2007/08/16 04:01

Workers at Sonoma County Superior Court who were prohibited from wearing union paraphernalia at work filed an unfair labor practices complaint against their administrators, saying the order violated their rights. The employees were wearing pins and certain colors to show their support for the Service Employees International Union, which represents 150 court workers in contract negotiations. Their current contract expires Sept. 24.

Last week, top administrators ordered them to stop wearing union symbols in public to avoid an appearance of bias.

"While we understand the right to participate in negotiations and union activities, we also require conduct that does not compromise the appearance of neutrality and impartiality to the public and other court users," Court Administrator Denise Gordon said.

On Tuesday, union representatives sent a complaint to the state Public Employment Relations Board, which will evaluate it, said SEIU field representative Kris Organ.



Law firm to dedicate Norton Commons office
Legal Business | 2007/08/16 02:06
Goldberg and Simpson PSC will dedicate its new $5 million, 35,000 square-foot office building in Norton Commons at a ribbon-cutting ceremony Monday.

The law firm is moving to the northeastern suburbs after 25 years in National City Tower downtown.

Jonathan Goldberg, the firm’s managing partner, will be presented a "key to the city" by "Mayor Jerry" - not Jerry Abramson, but Jerry Zegart, a financial adviser who has earned the nickname for his enthusiasm about living in Norton Commons.

Norton Commons partners will also be on hand.

Reporter Chris Otts can be reached at (502) 582-4589.

The first corporate building to go up in Norton Commons, it will house the firm's 63 employees on the second and third floors, with a dining area and a gym in the basement. The first floor of the building will be leased.

The ceremony is at 10 a.m. The building is at 9301 Dayflower Street. Norton Commons is off Ky. 1694 just north of Interstate 71.


[PREV] [1] ..[908][909][910][911][912][913][914][915][916].. [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
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 ..
PA high court orders countie..
Tight US House races in Cali..


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