|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2012/03/01 10:19
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd 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 CNOOC Limited American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) during the period between January 27, 2011 and September 16, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cnooc/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges CNOOC and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CNOOC is China’s biggest offshore state oil company. CNOOC co-owns the Penglai 19-3 (“PL 19-3”) oilfield in northern Bohai Bay with ConocoPhillips China Inc. (“ConocoPhillips”) as its operator.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, CNOOC’s ADSs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of US$270.64 per ADS on April 4, 2011.
On June 4, 2011, an oil spill occurred at the PL 19-3 oilfield. A second spill occurred at the PL 19-3 oilfield on June 17, 2011. The complaint alleges that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips failed to disclose the spills when they occurred. However, despite CNOOC’s attempts to conceal the news, news of the spills began to leak into the market. On July 5, 2011, the State Oceanic Administration (“SOA”), China’s coastal regulator, officially acknowledged the spills had occurred. Thereafter, CNOOC downplayed the extent of the damage done by the oil spills and the impact it would have on CNOOC’s operations. On September 2, 2011, the SOA announced that it had ordered CNOOC and ConocoPhillips to immediately suspend all oil production at the PL 19-3 oilfield. On September 6, 2011, it was announced that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips would establish a Bohai Bay fund to address the environmental impact of the oil spills. On this news, CNOOC’s ADSs declined US$9.39 per ADS on September 6, 2011. Then, on September 18, 2011, it was announced that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips would establish a second Bohai Bay fund. On this news, CNOOC’s ADSs declined another US$6.85 per ADS on September 19, 2011.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company was not in compliance with environmental laws and regulations; (b) as news of the oil spills emerged, the Company concealed the extent and severity of the oil spills; (c) as news of the oil spills emerged, the Company downplayed its responsibility to effect the cleanup of the oil spills as it portrayed itself as being the “non-operator” of the oilfield; (d) the Company improperly accounted for its contingent liabilities in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (e) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s operations and its expected oil production.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of CNOOC ADSs during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
www.rgrdlaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/22 10:01
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities during the period between February 8, 2010 and December 15, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from February 6, 2012. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/biosante/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges BioSante and its Chief Executive Officer with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BioSante is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing products for female sexual health and oncology.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the commercial viability, effectiveness, and market potential for LibiGel, a drug designed to improve the sex drive of women suffering from female sexual dysfunction, and specifically hypoactive sexual desire disorder (“HSDD”). Defendants boasted about LibiGel’s efficacy over placebo in clinical trials, and provided supposedly concrete “data” regarding the drug’s “statistically significant” effect on increasing the “number of satisfying sexual events” for women suffering from HSDD. As a result of these false statements, BioSante’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $3.81 on July 12, 2011.
On December 14, 2011, BioSante issued a press release disclosing for the first time to investors that LibiGel failed to yield positive results in large-scale efficacy tests designed by the Company. According to the clinical trial results, women treated with LibiGel did not experience a statistically significant increase in either total satisfying sexual encounters or sexual desire. In fact, in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, LibiGel did not fare significantly better than the placebo. On this news, BioSante’s stock collapsed $1.64 per share to close at $0.48 per share on December 15, 2011, a one-day decline of 77% on volume of nearly 50 million shares.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) LibiGel’s efficacy was well short of that required to obtain FDA approval; and (b) LibiGel failed to yield statistically superior results to placebo.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of BioSante securities during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.
www.rgrdlaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm Brower Piven Announces Investigation
Class Action |
2012/02/21 10:04
|
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty to current shareholders of CH Energy Group, Inc. and other violations of state law by the board of directors of CH Energy Group relating to the proposed acquisition of the company by Fortis Inc. The firm's investigation seeks to determine, among other things, whether the board breached its fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value.
On February 21, 2012, Fortis announced that it had entered into an agreement providing for Fortis to acquire CH Energy Group for $1.5 billion. Under the terms of the merger agreement, CH Energy Group shareholders will receive $65.00 for each share of CH Energy Group common stock held. However, according to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a high price target of $69.00 per share.
If you currently own shares of CH Energy Group and would like to learn more about the investigation being conducted by Brower Piven, you may email or call Brower Piven, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions.
www.browerpiven.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm Announces a Proposed Class Action Settlement
Class Action |
2012/02/20 09:39
|
All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation from May 5, 2008 to October 28, 2008, inclusive, including all those who purchased the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation pursuant and/or traceable to any registration statement, prospectus, prospectus supplement or any documents therein incorporated by reference filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's May 14, 2008 Secondary Offering, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the Court, that the above-captioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes of settlement only and that a settlement for One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) has been proposed. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sam B. Hall, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 100 East Houston Street, Marshall, Texas 75670, Courtroom 106, at 9:00 a.m., on May 1, 2012 to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting:
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Securities Litigation
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 2619
Faribault, MN 55021-9619
(866) 430-8117
www.PilgrimsPrideSecuritiesSettlement.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/16 09:55
|
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers the common stock of Collective Brands, Inc. between December 1, 2010 and May 24, 2011, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Scott J. Farrell, Esquire of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, New York 11530 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/collective-brands-inc-pss.
Collective Brands was formed in 2007 when Payless ShoeSource acquired the Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (formerly the Stride Rite Corporation) and Collective Licensing International. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Collective Brands and certain of the Company’s directors and/or officers made materially false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial results. Specifically, it is alleged that defendants concealed from the investing public problems concerning the Company’s inventory level for Payless; significantly lower sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and that the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s inventory at significant discounts, which negatively affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
On May 24, 2011, the Company disclosed its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. As alleged in the Complaint, the Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted EPS expected by analysts. The Company also reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless Domestic segment. As a result, the price of Collective Brands common stock dropped $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a decline of approximately 17% on heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 26, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. 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 an absent class member.
http://www.rigrodskylong.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/10 09:27
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. between February 1, 2011 and October 18, 2011, inclusive.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/powerwave/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Powerwave and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Powerwave engages in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of wireless solutions for wireless communications networks worldwide.
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: (i) that the Company was experiencing a dramatic decline in demand from customers in its North American markets; (ii) that the Company was rapidly burning through its free cash flow as revenues declined and expenses increased; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its operations and earnings.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/09 10:01
|
Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the American Depositary Shares of China Medical Technologies, Inc. between November 26, 2007 and December 12, 2011, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.
China Medical develops, manufactures and markets immunodiagnostic and molecular diagnostic products. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including: (1) that the Company’s acquisition of Beijing Bio-Ekon Biotechnology Co. Ltd. (“BBE”) was from a third-party seller connected to China Medical’s CEO; (2) that the Company substantially overpaid to acquire BBE; (3) that China Medical’s acquisition of BBE involved the use of fraudulent shell companies; (4) that the Company was suffering substantial operating losses prior to the acquisition; (5) that a majority of the Company’s accounts receivable were in excess of 120 days; (6) that, as a result, China Medical’s financial results were overstated; (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8), as a result of the foregoing, that the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
http://www.glancylaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
