|
|
|
Palm Beach Construction Law Attorney
Business |
2012/02/05 09:54
|
Palm Beach Construction Law Attorney
Heitman Law Firm serves its clients by first comprehending the specific issues our clients face and then tailoring our representation to those specific needs. Construction law cases often involve legal, technical, engineering, design, constructability and scheduling issues. We speak the language of construction. We understand your business. We know how to read a set of plans. Our client service is based on the idea that the client should not be required to pay to
bring us up to speed on the construction issues. Instead, we make it our business to be ahead of the learning curve.
Our law firm's Florida construction law practice includes the following areas:
• Land Use Planning
• Permitting
• Bid Preparation
• Bid Protests
• Contract Drafting
• Contract Review
• Contract Negotiation
• Contract Administration
• Design-Build Contracts
• Contract Claims Preparation
• Contract Dispute Resolution
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
• Dispute Review Board Hearings
• Administrative Hearings
• We represent both domestic and international clients
• Private Construction Projects
• Public Construction Projects
• Projects Nationwide
• Design Professional Negligence
Heitman Law Firm combines experience and efficiency in construction law to render their clients high quality legal representation. With years of experience building real world construction projects, Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law and efficiently resolve construction disputes. Visit www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org for more information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murray Frank LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/03 10:01
|
Murray Frank LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 12 Civ. 0672) on behalf of all individuals and institutions who purchased securities of GLG Life Tech Corporation during the period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011 (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements about or knew but failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s original equipment manufacturers were experiencing production issues that impacted the packaging and appearance quality of its products; (2) consumers were responding poorly to the Company’s AN0C and stevia products; and/or (3) the Company would not meet its earnings projections.
On October 6, 2011, GLG Life Tech issued a press release disclosing for the first time a negative outlook concerning its AN0C and stevia products. On the news, the Company’s stock price dropped by 42% from a close of $3.45 per share on October 5, 2011 to a close of $1.99 per share on October 6, 2011.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the period ending September 30, 2011. Revenue for the period was $1.7 million, versus revenue of $20.9 million for the same period in the previous year. EBITDA for the period was negative $8.8 million, versus EBITDA of $6.1 million for the same period in the previous year. Following its announcement of these disappointing results, the Company’s management declined to provide any further formal guidance on revenues, EBITDA, or capital expenditures. On the news, the Company’s stock price continued to drop, from a close of $2.32 per share on November 11, 2011 (the last trading day before the announcement) to a close of $2.01 on November 14, 2011.
If you purchased GLG Life Tech securities during the period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011, you may move the Court, not later than February 13, 2012, to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included in the class.
www.murrayfrank.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldman to face mortgage debt class-action lawsuit
Breaking Legal News |
2012/02/03 10:01
|
Goldman Sachs Group Inc was ordered by a federal judge to face a securities class-action lawsuit accusing it of defrauding investors about a 2006 offering of securities backed by risky mortgage loans from a now-defunct lender.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan certified a class-action lawsuit by investors led by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi.
These investors claimed they lost money in the GSAMP Trust 2006-S2, a $698 million offering of certificates backed by second-lien home loans made by New Century Financial Corp, a California subprime mortgage specialist that went bankrupt in 2007.
Thursday's decision is a setback for Goldman, which had sought to force investors to bring their cases individually.
Class certification lets investors pool resources, which can cut costs, and can lead to larger recoveries than if investors are forced to sue individually.
Goldman spokesman Michael Duvally declined to comment.
The bank is one of many accused by Congress, regulators and others of having fueled the nation's housing crisis and 2008 financial crisis in part by having misled investors about the quality of mortgage debt they sold. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules against abortion protester's lawsuit
Court Watch |
2012/02/02 10:01
|
A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled that an anti-abortion protester arrested near the Liberty Bell in 2007 can't collect damages from park rangers who detained him.
The three-judge panel on Thursday upheld a lower-court ruling to dismiss 32-year-old Michael Marcavage's lawsuit against two Independence National Historic Park rangers. The Philadelphia Daily News reported on the panel's decision.
The suit stemmed from Marcavage's arrest after he refused to move his protest to another area of the park. A federal magistrate convicted the Lansdowne resident of two misdemeanors.
Marcavage appealed and claimed rangers violated his constitutional rights. In 2010, a federal appeals court threw out the misdemeanor convictions. Then Marcavage filed an amended complaint arguing that park rangers were liable for unspecified damages. The court ruled against him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities Litigation Attorney - Robert L. Herskovits
Elite Lawyers |
2012/02/01 09:34
|
New York FINRA Arbitration & Securities Litigation Attorney
Robert L. Herskovits
Robert concentrates his practice in the areas of securities litigation and regulatory enforcement matters. Robert routinely advises broker/dealers, industry professionals and investors in varied litigation, arbitration and regulatory matters relating to the securities industry. Robert is certified as an arbitrator for FINRA, AAA and the NFA and formerly served as in-house counsel for an NYSE-member broker/dealer.
Prior to forming Herskovits PLLC, Robert was a partner with Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC for more than five years.
Robert received a JD from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and a BA from Syracuse University. Robert is admitted to practice in the State of New York and before various federal courts, including the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
An active participant in the bar, Robert is the Co-Chair of the Committee for Securities and Exchanges of the New York County Lawyers' Association. Robert's accomplishments were recently recognized by Thomson Reuters' "Super Lawyers", which designated Robert as a 2011 Rising Star in business litigation.
Practice Areas
•Securities Litigation and Arbitration
•Securities Industry Regulatory Defense
•Broker-Dealer Advisory Services
•Securities Industry Employment Litigation
•Commercial Litigation
Address
1065 Avenue of the Americas
27th Floor
New York, New York 10018
Contact:
Tel: (212) 897-5410
Fax: (646) 558-0239
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2012/01/31 10:15
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Veolia Environnement S.A. American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) during the period between April 27, 2007 and August 4, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The complaint charges Veolia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Veolia operates utility and public transportation businesses. The Company supplies drinking water, provides waste management services, manages and maintains heating and air conditioning systems, and operates rail and road passenger transportation systems.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that Veolia was materially overstating its financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices; (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; (c) that Veolia failed to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the United States, and for Southern Europe; (d) that the Company’s revenues were being hampered by the renewal of some of its major concession contracts; and (e) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
On August 4, 2011, Veolia announced its half year results, for the period ended June 30, 2011. For the half year, the Company reported consolidated revenue of €16,286.7 million. Moreover, defendants reported operating income of €252.2 million, compared to €1100.7 million in the prior year period, due to “non-recurring write-downs amounting to €686M (principally in Italy, Morocco and the United States).” The Company stated that it would exit certain businesses and certain geographies, including its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the United States and in Southern Europe. In reaction to these announcements, the price of Veolia ADSs fell $4.66 per share, or over 22%, to close at $16.10 per share, on heavy trading volume.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired Veolia ADSs during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Veolia ADSs during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than February 27, 2012.
A “lead plaintiff” is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Veolia shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.
Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3 billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” in each of the last nine years.
You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(877) 779-1414
www.bernlieb.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CA Supreme Court reinstates murder conviction
Breaking Legal News |
2012/01/31 10:15
|
The California Supreme Court on Monday reinstated a man's second-degree murder conviction for killing a well-known San Diego surfer, overturning a 2010 ruling by a state appeals court that had reduced it to voluntary manslaughter.
The state's highest court said it disagreed with the decision by the 4th District Court of Appeals that cited insufficient evidence of implied malice by Seth Cravens when he delivered the single fatal punch to 24-year-old Emery Kauanui in 2007.
Cravens was found guilty in November 2009 of second-degree murder and sentenced to 20 year to life in prison. The court ruling Monday means he will continue to serve that sentence.
If the voluntary manslaughter conviction had stuck, he could have faced a maximum of 16 years in prison.
Nicknamed the "Flying Hawaiian," Kauanui was a fixture at San Diego's Windansea Beach, where his favorite surf break is now called "Emery's Left."
Prosecutors said Cravens and four other men had gone to the La Jolla house of the surfer's mother to retaliate after Kauanui accidentally spilled beer on one of the men earlier in the evening at a bar.
After a group attack on Kauanui, Cravens delivered the punch to his head that prosecutors said fractured his skull. He fell then died at a hospital four days later. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
