|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Umeda LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/06 09:55
|
Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP, announces that the firm commenced a class action lawsuit on February 3, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between February 12, 2010 and December 15, 2011 (the "Class Period"). The action is against the Company and the Company's Chief Executive Officer for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
BioSante Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical Company focused on developing products for female sexual health and oncology. Over the last decade, BioSante has been in the process of developing LibiGel, a drug designed to improve the sex drive of women suffering from female sexual dysfunction, specifically hypoactive desire disorder.
The complaint alleges that beginning on February 12, 2010, the Company, along with its Chief Executive Officer, issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to investors about LibiGel's commercial viability, effectiveness, and market potential that caused shares of BioSante to trade at artificially high prices. Specifically, it is alleged that officials at BioSante boasted that clinical data demonstrated that LibiGel had a "statistically significant" effect on female patients treated with the product, and that LibiGel was "the most clinically advanced pharmaceutical product in the U.S." Additionally, it is alleged that BioSante and its Chief Executive Officer misled investors by routinely analogizing LibiGel's market potential to the $2 billion dollar market for male erectile drugs, often comparing LibiGel to products like "Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis."
Robbins Umeda LLP represents individual and institutional shareholders in derivative, direct, and class action lawsuits. The law firm's skilled litigation teams include former federal prosecutors, former defense counsel from top multinational corporate law firms, and career shareholder rights attorneys. Robbins Umeda LLP has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. For more information, please go to http://www.robbinsumeda.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/06 09:54
|
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Cablevision Systems Corporation between February 16, 2011 and October 28, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Cablevision and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that Cablevision was experiencing higher retention and advertising costs; (ii) that Cablevision was losing more video customers than expected, especially in the New York area -- the Company's main service area -- due to increased competition; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
On October 28, 2011, Cablevision announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2011, the period ended September 30, 2011. On that same day, Cablevision held a conference call with analysts and investors to discuss the earnings announcement and the Company's operations, including the Company's subscriber loss. In reaction to the Company's announcement, the price of Cablevision stock fell $2.17 per share, or 13%, to close at $15.14 per share.
While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/cablevision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY court: Judge can't block $18B Chevron judgment
Class Action |
2012/01/27 09:08
|
A judge overstepped his authority when he tried to ban enforcement around the world of an $18 billion judgment against Chevron Inc. for environmental damage in Ecuador, a federal appeals court said Thursday.
The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained why it lifted the ban last year and blocked a judge from staging a trial to decide if the judgment was obtained fairly.
It said the judge has authority to block collection if Ecuadorean plaintiffs move against Chevron in New York, but law does not give him authority "to dictate to the entire world which judgments are entitled to respect and which countries' courts are to be treated as international pariahs."
The judgment came last February after nearly two decades of litigation that stemmed from the poisoning of land in the Ecuadorean rainforest while the oil company Texaco was operating an oil consortium from 1972 to 1990 in the Amazon. Texaco became a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron in 2001.
Chevron obtained an order from U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in March blocking Ecuadorean plaintiffs from trying to collect the $18 billion until he could stage a trial to determine whether the judgment was fraudulently obtained.
The Ecuadorean plaintiffs appealed Kaplan's ruling to the 2nd Circuit. The appeals court heard oral arguments and then issued an order in September lifting Kaplan's block on collection efforts. On Thursday, it went a step further, tossing out the portion of Chevron's challenge to the judgment that sought to block its enforcement anywhere in the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
