|
|
|
Fixodent The Subject Of Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/02/14 09:24
|
A class action lawsuit is alleging that Fixodent denture cream may have caused serious problems. ABC News reported that lawyers for two former denture cream users are accusing Proctor & Gamble of manufacturing a product that made their clients extremely ill. Mark Jacoby, a 41-year-old construction worker who wore dentures for 20 years, told ABC News that he believes his debilitating neurological illness is due to the high zinc content in his Fixodent. "I started getting tingling in my fingertips. And then it started happening in my toes," he told ABC News' 20/20 anchor Chris Cuomo, who is the Chief of the Law & Justice Unit. "I started getting weaker and, you know, I couldn't walk right, off balance and I'm at this point now." He said his doctors searched for years for the cause of his debilitating neurological illness that robbed him of his independence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Lawsuit Filed by Eagan Avenatti, LLP
Class Action |
2011/02/14 09:20
|
| Eagan Avenatti, LLP, a law firm specializing in consumer rights, filed a class action lawsuit earlier today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (Case No. 3:11-cv-00248-M), alleging breach of contract, fraud and deceptive sales practices by Jerry Jones, the National Football League, the Dallas Cowboys Football Club and related defendants in connection with Super Bowl XLV held last Sunday in Arlington, Texas. The complaint, which seeks compensatory damages of over $5 Million, claims that the unlawful acts of Jones, the NFL and the Cowboys resulted in approximately 400 fans who purchased tickets and traveled to the game being denied a seat, despite having spent thousands of dollars in tickets and travel expenses to attend the Super Bowl. The complaint also alleges that Jones and the Cowboys deceived Cowboys season ticket holders known as the “Founders” into paying $1,200 a seat for Super Bowl tickets that turned out to be temporary seats with obstructed views. The “Founders,” who collectively account for over $100 Million in personal seat licenses sold to help fund construction of the stadium, each paid at least $100,000 per seat for their seat license, which the Cowboys and Jones promised would entitle them to the “best sightlines in the stadium” and the right to purchase a ticket to Sunday’s Super Bowl at face value. Instead, they arrived at the stadium Sunday to discover that they had been assigned to sit in obstructed view, temporary metal seats, which had only recently been installed in an effort to meet Jones’ goal of breaking NFL Super Bowl attendance records. “You don’t have to own the Cowboys or run the NFL to know that you cannot lawfully treat people like this,” stated lead attorney Michael Avenatti. “At an absolute minimum, Jones, the Cowboys and the NFL need to accept full responsibility and reimburse fans one hundred percent for their expenses and damages. Anything short of that is a slap in the face to the fans of the NFL and the Cowboys.” For more information about the lawsuit, please visit www.ticketlawsuit.com or contact Judy Regnier at jregnier@eoalaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abrahan, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP Announces Filing of Class Action
Class Action |
2011/02/14 09:19
|
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class (the “Class”) of investors who purchased Broadwind Energy, Inc. (“Broadwind” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:BWEN - News) common stock between the period of March 17, 2010 through August 9, 2010. The Complaint alleges Broadwind and certain of its officers and directors with violating the federal securities laws by failing to disclose that: (i) Broadwind’s RBA subsidiary was experiencing significant issues with key contracts; (ii) Broadwind was materially overstating its financial condition by improperly delaying the recognition of the impairment of its goodwill and intangible assets related to its RBA subsidiary; (iii) the Company was experiencing a reduction in demand from its customers; (iv) Broadwind’s financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures; and (v) defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects. As a result, the Company’s statements concerning its business prospects and financial performance were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 9, 2010, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second quarter of 2010, the period ending June 30, 2010. For the quarter, the Company reported lower than expected revenues of $36.6 million and a net loss of $14.2 million or $.13 per share. In a reaction to this news, shares of BWEN common stock fell $0.35 per share to close on August 9, 2010 at $2.50 per share, representing a drop of 12%. If you purchased BWEN common stock between March 17, 2010 through August 9, 2010 and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this action, you must move the Court no later than April 12, 2011. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights as a potential class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact: Jack G. Fruchter or Arthur J. Chen of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP toll free at (800) 440-8986, or via e-mail at info@aftlaw.com or achen@aftlaw.com. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extensive experience in securities class action cases, and the firm has been ranked among the leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries achieved by a survey of class action law firms conducted by Institutional Shareholder Services. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. Files a Claim Against Comerica Securities, Inc. For Portfolio Losses
Legal Marketing |
2011/02/14 01:24
|
The Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. www.suemyadvisor.com, announced today it filed an arbitration claim against Comerica Securities, Inc., a subsidiary of Comerica Bank (NYSE: CMA) on behalf of an 81 year old retired investor and his wife. The claim alleges that the Respondent and several of its brokers were negligent in the management of Claimants’ portfolio, originally worth over $1 million. The claim further alleges violations of Michigan Uniform Securities Act, unsuitability, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Claimants’ losses exceed $100,000. Michael Hill, Managing Partner with the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. says, “the investors wanted a safe and conservative growth portfolio for the remainder of their retirement and instead received an actively traded account that exposed them to unnecessary market risks.” For a free case evaluation or to discuss this matter, please contact the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. at 888-923-9223, or visit us on the web at www.suemyadvisor.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law firm announces $100M class action
Class Action |
2011/02/12 09:20
|
Lawfirm Siskinds has announced a class-action lawsuit against Smart Technologies Inc., seeking $100 million in compensation for people who bought shares during the company's initial public stock offering in July. The lawsuit claims the Calgary-based maker of interactive whiteboards — used to make classroom presentations— failed to disclose a significant decline in sales growth and poor performance of a company it had acquired. Lead plaintiffs Robert LeFever and Gail Runnells say they bought shares in July at US$17 each, and claim the share value fell after interim financial statements were released in November. The shares are currently worth about $9. The suit is filed against several defendants including Smart Technologies, members of the company's board of directors, and several major banks that acted as underwriters in the offering. Shares in Smart Technologies were down one cent to $9.09 in midday trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Super Bowl class action lawsuit is coming
Court Watch |
2011/02/11 09:22
|
As it scrambled to placate the 400 ticketholders who didn't get a seat to Super Bowl XLV, the NFL has a second group of angry fans on its hands. Eagan Avenatti, LLP, a law firm specializing in consumer rights, launched an investigation into claims that the Cowboys deceived season ticket holders into buying $1,200 seats with obstructed views. While the NFL took the blame for the 400 fans whose temporary seats weren't ready for Sunday's game, Avenatti took aim at Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. "These season ticket holders are rightfully irate at Jones and the Cowboys," attorney Michael Avenatti said in a statement. "Jones sold the very fans that helped finance the construction of the stadium on the idea of attending the Super Bowl, took their money, and then put them in illegitimate seats with obstructed views. What team or owner on the planet would treat its best fans like this?" Known as the "Founders," the fans helped finance the $1.2 billion stadium, contributing more than $100 million in personal seat licenses and another $3 million in annual season ticket sales. Each paid at least $100,000 in PSLs. "We will get to the bottom of this," Avenatti said. "And when we do, I expect we will find that greed and ego had a lot to do with what happened." Meanwhile, the NFL expanded its makeup offerings to the 400 fans who had tickets but didn't even get a seat on Super Sunday. The league's offering includes the option of a free ticket to next year's Super Bowl game plus a cash payment of $2,400 (triple the original face value of Sunday's ticket) or a ticket to a future Super Bowl, including next year's if so desired, plus round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations, but not the $2,400. They can wait until after the conference championship games each season to see whether their favorite team reaches the Super Bowl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Law Firm of Nathaniel D. Johnson
Elite Lawyers |
2011/02/03 10:19
|
http://www.nathanieldjohnson.com/attorney-profile
The Law Firm of Nathaniel D. Johnson L.L.C. represents both private and public sector employees across the United States. The law firm’s representations range from negotiating severance and settlement agreements to litigation on behalf of employees in a variety of forums that include the following:

- Appellate actions.
- Group and class actions.
--State and federal court jurisdictions
Experience
Civil Rights Attorney for the Michigan House of Representative Judiciary Committee.
- Drafted statewide civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation.
- Advised State of Michigan elected officials on the political and policy implications of proposed legislation.
- Served as a liaison to special interests and community groups inviting their participation in the formation of public policy.
Bar Admissions
- Maryland
- U.S. District Court District of Maryland
- U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia
- U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
Education
- Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Lansing, Michigan
J.D.
- Wayne State University Law School, Detroit, Michigan
LL.M. (pending)
Major: Employment Law
- Bowie State University, Bowie, Maryland
B.S.
Major: Public Administration
Professional Associations and Memberships
- American Bar Association
- Maryland Labor and Employment Law Section
Birthplace
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|