|
|
|
Saxena White P.A. Files a Securities Fraud Class Action
Class Action |
2011/11/08 09:18
|
Saxena White P.A. announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited common stock on the New York Stock Exchange between April 29, 2010 and October 19, 2011, inclusive.
The action charges Agnico-Eagle and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that the Company concealed material adverse problems present at its Goldex Mine which eventually forced the Company to shut down the mine and write off a $260 million investment in the mine.
On October 19, 2011, Agnico-Eagle issued a press release titled, "Agnico-Eagle's Goldex mine to suspend production during investigation and remediation of water inflow and ground stability issue; book value of Goldex to be written off." The Company announced that it was suspending mining operations and gold production at its Goldex mine in Val d'Or, Quebec effective immediately. This unexpected closure forced Company to take a $260 million write off of its investment. This news shocked the market, resulting in an 18.54% decline in the value of Agnico-Eagle's stock on October 19th after the news was revealed. On that day, the shares of Agnico-Eagle closed at $46.51, down $10.59, on unusually high New York Stock Exchange volume.
You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action at www.saxenawhite.com. If you purchased the shares of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited between the period of April 29, 2010 and October 19, 2011, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.
If you purchased Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited during the Class Period of April 29, 2010 and October 19, 2011, inclusive, and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than January 6, 2012. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member.
Tel: (561) 394-3399
Fax: (561) 394-3382
www.saxenawhite.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge mulling $410M BofA overdraft settlement
Class Action |
2011/11/07 12:21
|
An attorney for Bank of America says 13.2 million customers may be eligible for a settlement in a lawsuit claiming the bank charged excessive overdraft fees.
The final tabulation came Monday as a Miami judge considers whether to finalize a $410 million settlement during a hearing to consider any objections or other issues related to the deal reached in May.
The class-action lawsuit contends the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank processed its debit card and check payments in a way that triggered more overdrafts and therefore more fees. Even though it agreed to the settlement, the bank insists the overdraft system was proper.
The lawsuit covers people with Bank of America debit cards between January 2001 and May 2011.
New bank regulations prohibit this type of debit card fee unless customers approve. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/11/07 12:19
|
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 Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. between August 27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive.
The Complaint charges that OmniVision and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by concealing the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple. On August 25, 2011 OmniVision disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-megapixel product line. As a result, OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new iPhone 4S, released on October 14, 2011. In response to this news, OmniVision stock declined $7.55 per share, over 30%, to close at $17.27 on August 26, 2011. On October 14, 2011, when the iPhone 4S was released, experts examined the phone's camera and determined that Sony, not Omnivision, had supplied a key component. On this confirmation of the reduced role of the Company's components in the iPhone 4S, OmniVision stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3%, to close at $15.95 per share.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 27, 2011, 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/omnivision/, 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MF Global faces class-action suits after bankruptcy
Class Action |
2011/11/07 12:19
|
Two class-action lawsuits have been filed against bankrupt brokerage MF Global as customers struggle to recover funds from the first major US casualty of the European debt crisis.
On Saturday, Seattle-based Hagens Berman said it was "investigating whether the company used clients' money to offset losses the company had incurred in failed investments."
It filed a lawsuit in the name of investors who bought MF Global shares between May 20 and October 28 or who bought bonds issued in August.
The complaint charged that MF Global "made false and misleading statements to investors, including failing to disclose the company's reported internal control problems in segregating clients' funds."
Attorney Reed Kathrein said Friday's resignation of the company's chief executive Jon Corzine, whose activities in the last weeks of the failing firm have attracted regulator scrutiny, was "not an encouraging sign."
"As we continue our investigation, we hope to uncover whether the company mixed investors' and company money, and if Corzine himself played a part in that decision," he added in a statement.
Boston law firm Block & Leviton said Friday it had also filed a class-action lawsuit in New York federal court on behalf of MF Global clients over the same period.
It charged MF Global made "certain materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's internal financial controls and liquidity levels" through its "most senior" officers and directors.
Investors lost some $585 million in market capitalization in the week that preceded MF Global's bankruptcy filings alone, according to Block & Leviton. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/11/01 10:11
|
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 Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of HCA Holdings, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its March 9, 2011 initial public offering ("IPO").
The Complaint charges that HCA, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants omitted the following from the Registration Statement: (i) HCA improperly accounted for its prior business combinations in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial results to be materially misstated; (ii) HCA failed to maintain effective internal controls concerning accounting for business combinations; and (iii) HCA failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties concerning its revenue growth rate.
On July 25, 2011, HCA announced disappointing second quarter 2011 results. On this news, HCA's stock fell $6.64 to close of $27.97. Then, on October 1, 2011, Barron's issued an article titled "Where Did the $15.8 Billion Go?", which claimed HCA improperly accounted for two major acquisitions as recapitalizations causing HCA to overstate reported earnings and avoid taking significant charges which would have negatively impacted earnings. On this news, HCA fell to $18.81 on October 3, 2011.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 27, 2011, 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/hca/, 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/10/31 08:43
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on October 26, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. common stock between August 27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The action charges OmniVision and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that the Company had concealed the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple Inc. ("Apple") to supply imaging sensors for Apple's celebrated iPhone.
OmniVision is a designer and manufacturer of image sensors that are used in digital cameras to convert optical images into electronic signals. OmniVision is one of the leading suppliers of complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors ("CMOS") sensors used in mobile telephones. The Complaint alleges that OmniVision failed to disclose that: (a) it had lost its lucrative, high-profile, and exclusive contract with Apple; (b) competition was eroding its "leadership position" in the smartphone industry; (c) delays in the development of its 8-megapixel product line were threatening its prospects; and (d) it lacked a reasonable basis for its statements about its bright prospects in the smartphone market.
On August 25, 2011, OmniVision announced its results for the fiscal first quarter of 2012 and provided guidance for the fiscal second quarter of 2012 that was well below analyst expectations. The Company also disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-megapixel product line. Based on the Company's disappointing guidance, analysts recognized that OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new, fifth generation iPhone--the iPhone 4S--set for release in the fall of 2011. As a result of these revelations, OmniVision's stock declined $7.55 per share, or 30.4 percent, to close at $17.27 per share on August 26, 2011 on extraordinary trading volume.
On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.
On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.
If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm.
Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country's premier law firms representing institutional investors in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for more than 45 years, seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dyer & Berens LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/10/26 09:43
|
Dyer & Berens LLP announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of AgFeed Industries, Inc. between March 16, 2009 and August 2, 2011, inclusive. AgFeed is engaged in the animal nutrition and commercial hog producing businesses in China and maintains its principal executive offices in Colorado.
What actions may I take at this time?
If you purchased or acquired shares during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must request appointment by the court no later than December 19, 2011. A "lead plaintiff" works with counsel to direct the litigation and participates in important decisions, including the amount of compensation to accept in settlement of the class action. The lead plaintiffs here will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from their investment in the Company during the Class Period.
What are the allegations in the complaint?
The complaint contains allegations that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically, the defendants misrepresented and concealed from the investing public that, among other things: (i) AgFeed's formula-based analysis for determining accounts receivable and calculating reserves for doubtful accounts did not take into consideration the individual repayment abilities of its customers; (ii) the Company's accounts receivable were materially overvalued and its allowances for doubtful accounts were significantly under-reserved; and (iii) the Company exaggerated its market edge as the combination of overstated assets and understated expenses resulted in an illusion of heightened profitability and Company value. Based upon the foregoing, the complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
About Dyer & Berens LLP.
The plaintiffs are represented by Dyer & Berens LLP. The firm's extensive experience in securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved investors. For more information about the firm, please visit www.dyerberens.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
