|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit
Class Action |
2012/01/26 12:40
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of Collective Brands, Inc. common stock during the period between December 1, 2010 and May 24, 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/collectivebrands/. 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 Collective Brands and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collective Brands is the holding company for three lines of business: Payless ShoeSource (“Payless”), Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (“PLG”), and Collective Licensing. The Company was formerly known as Payless ShoeSource, Inc. and changed its name to Collective Brands in August 2007.
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, Collective Brands stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $23.44 per share on February 18, 2011.
On May 24, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted earnings per share expected by analysts. The Company further 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, offset by sales growth of 22.5% in PLG. On this news, Collective Brands stock collapsed $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 17%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s inventory level for Payless remained at excessively high levels and aging inventory for its Payless segment was a concern; (b) sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores were significantly worse than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and (c) the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s bloated inventory at significant discounts, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Collective Brands common stock 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.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hausfeld LLP Files Class Action Suit
Class Action |
2012/01/21 10:10
|
Hausfeld LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of those who sold HearUSA common stock between January 18, 2011 and July 31, 2011, inclusive. The lawsuit, filed January 18, 2012, seeks to pursue remedies against Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc. (“Siemens”) for violations of Sections 10(b), 9(a)(2) and 18(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78i(a)(2), and 78r(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. Siemens is engaged, in part, in the manufacture of hearing products, and HearUSA was involved in the distribution of Siemens’ hearing products. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and is captioned MTB Investment Partners, LP vs. Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc.
The complaint alleges that Siemens engaged in a fraudulent scheme to drive down the price of HearUSA common stock in an attempt to acquire HearUSA’s assets for less than their fair market value by, in part, filing false and misleading statements with the SEC. The result of Siemens’ false and misleading statements, according to the complaint, was to drive down the market price of HearUSA common stock from 90¢/share on January 18, 2011 to 35¢/share on July 28, 2011.
According to the complaint, Siemens made a number of false and/or misleading statements in its public filings which caused HearUSA stock to plummet. These public filings stated that Siemens at no point had the intention to acquire HearUSA, despite the fact that it had been in the advanced stages of a negotiated buyout process for HearUSA. The public filings further stated that Siemens, if it wanted to acquire HearUSA, could do so at no consideration to shareholders because of debts owed to Siemens by HearUSA. The complaint alleges that this assertion misrepresented the status and extent of the debt owed to Siemens by HearUSA and Siemens’ ability to acquire HearUSA pursuant to the credit agreement entered into between the two companies. The complaint alleges that, in making these statements, Siemens effectively told the market that HearUSA stock was worthless, and that the market responded accordingly.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, William Butterfield of Hausfeld LLP at (202)540-7200 or via email at wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities Class Action Filings Increase Slightly in 2011
Class Action |
2012/01/20 10:10
|
Federal securities fraud class action filing activity increased slightly in 2011, according to Securities Class Action Filings—2011 Year in Review, a semiannual report prepared by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with Cornerstone Research. A total of 188 federal securities class actions were filed in 2011 compared with 176 filings in 2010, with an equal number of actions (94) being filed in the first and second halves of the year. The number of class actions filed was 3.1 percent below the annual average of 194 filings observed between 1997 and 2010.
Consistent with a trend first observed in 2010, filings related to merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions continued to constitute a large percentage of total filings, accounting for 22.9 percent of 2011 activity. There were 20 such filings in the first half of 2011 and 23 filings in the last six months of the year. In 2010, M&A filings constituted 22.7 percent of all filings.
Litigation against Chinese issuers listed on U.S. exchanges through reverse mergers represented a major component of filings activity during 2011, although evidence indicates that this type of litigation is subsiding. In 2011, 33 such actions were filed, constituting 17.6 percent of all federal securities class actions. This activity occurred predominantly in the first half of the year, when 24 of these actions were filed; only nine were brought in the last six months, including five filed in the last three months of the year. In contrast, there were only nine such cases filed during 2010, suggesting both a rapid peak and decline in this type of litigation activity. Compared to other class action securities fraud complaints, Chinese reverse merger filings are more likely to allege violations of generally accepted accounting principles and financial restatements and are less likely to allege insider trading. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2012/01/18 10:07
|
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 Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Chemed Corporation between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.
The Complaint alleges that Chemed and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) Chemed billed Medicare for hospice services for ineligible patients and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the government; (ii) that a significant portion of the Company's revenues were the result of defendants' scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (iii) that, in a sealed complaint, a former VITAS manager accused Chemed of wrongfully enrolling ineligible patients in hospice; and (iv) Chemed's financial results were materially overstated.
On November 16, 2011, a Bloomberg article disclosed that a former VITAS manager had accused Chemed of defrauding the government by conspiring with health insurers to enroll Medicare patients who were not dying into hospice. The article also discussed a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into fraudulent conduct by VITAS. On this news, shares of Chemed fell $6.87 to close at $50.65 per share.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 12, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.
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/chemed/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2012/01/18 09:07
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Chemed Corporation common stock during the period between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.
The complaint charges Chemed and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Chemed, through its subsidiaries, provides hospice care and repair and cleaning services in the United States. The Company operates in two segments: VITAS and Roto-Rooter.
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 the Company engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services for patients who did not qualify for hospice and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the U.S. government; (b) that a significant portion of the Company’s hospice enrollments, revenues and earnings were the direct result of defendants’ scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services; (c) that, in a complaint filed under seal, a former VITAS manager had accused the Company of engaging in a Company-wide scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (d) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (e) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (f) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
On November 16, 2011, a Bloomberg article entitled “Whistleblower Accuses Chemed Unit of Medicare HMO Conspiracy” disclosed that a former VITAS manager had accused Chemed of defrauding the federal government by conspiring with health insurers to enroll Medicare patients who were not dying into hospice. The article also discussed a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into fraudulent conduct by VITAS. In response to these announcements, shares of the Company’s stock fell $6.87 per share, or 11%, to close at $50.65 per share on November 16, 2011.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares 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 March 12, 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 Chemed 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 almost $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 Ohio.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(877) 779-1414
www.bernlieb.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2012/01/16 09:34
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Netflix, Inc. common stock during the period between December 20, 2010 and October 24, 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/netflix. 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 Netflix and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netflix is a subscription service that streams television shows and movies over the Internet, and in the United States subscribers can have DVDs delivered to their homes.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and its contracts with content providers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Netflix’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011. While Netflix stock was inflated (partially by Netflix buying back its own stock), Company insiders were selling 388,661 shares of their own Netflix stock for proceeds of $90.2 million.
On September 15, 2011, Netflix updated its third quarter 2011 guidance and revealed that it had lost a million subscribers due to its recently announced price increases becoming effective. On this news, Netflix stock fell nearly $40 per share to close at just under $170 per share. On September 19, 2011, the Company announced that, in an effort to offset skyrocketing costs and rapidly defecting customers, the Company would begin charging separately for its two services and had raised prices as much as 60%. Netflix stock dropped to $130 per share on this news. Then, on October 24, 2011, Netflix issued its third quarter 2011 shareholder letter, which reported a net loss of 810,000 U.S. subscribers, translating into a cumulative loss of 5.5 million subscribers. The subsequently filed Form 10-Q revealed that Netflix’s obligations for content over the coming years had skyrocketed to $3.5 billion, with $2.8 billion due within three years. These disclosures caused Netflix stock to collapse from $118.84 per share on October 24, 2011 to $80.86 per share on October 27, 2011, a 32% decline in three days and a 73% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
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) Netflix had short-term contracts with content providers and defendants were aware that the Company faced the choice of renegotiating the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates or not renewing them at all; (b) content providers were already demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically alter Netflix’s business; (c) defendants recognized that Netflix’s pricing would have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be incurring; and (d) Netflix was not on track to achieve the earnings forecasts made by and for the Company for 2011.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Netflix common stock 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. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2012/01/16 09:33
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Chemed Corporation common stock during the period between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.
The complaint charges alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (1) that the Company engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services for patients who did not qualify for hospice and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the U.S. government; (2) that a significant portion of the Company’s hospice enrollments, revenues and earnings were the direct result of defendants’ scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services; (3) that, in a complaint filed under seal, a former VITAS manager had accused the Company of engaging in a Company-wide scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (4) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (5) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/che.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
