|
|
|
Dynex Capital, Inc. Reaches Agreement-in-Principle to Settle Class Action
Class Action |
2011/10/04 11:22
|
Dynex Capital, Inc. announced today that it has entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted against all defendants of the class action lawsuit captioned In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 Civ. 1897 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.) now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”). The lawsuit was filed by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund in February 2005 and alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a class of purchasers of MERIT Series 12-1 and MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds between February 2000 and May 2004. The memorandum of understanding sets forth terms of a proposed settlement whereby the Company would pay $7.5 million into an escrow account following the negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement and preliminary approval by the Court. The disbursement of the escrowed payment will be subject to notice to the class and final approval by the Court, in addition to any other conditions contained in the definitive settlement agreement. The Company continues to deny that it violated any federal securities laws and has agreed in principle to this settlement solely to eliminate the expense, burden and uncertainty of the litigation. The Company had not provided reserves for this litigation and accordingly the proposed settlement amount will be included as an expense in the Company’s financial statements for the third quarter of 2011. The proposed settlement amount will reduce earnings per share for the third quarter of 2011 by approximately $0.186 per common share. The proposed settlement does not impact the Company’s previously declared dividend for the third quarter of $0.27 per common share. “This settlement will resolve legacy litigation so that we may continue to focus on the long-term future of our business,” said Thomas B. Akin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “It will settle a significant uncertainty and does not materially impact the core operating or future earnings potential of the Company.” Separately the Company announced that it expects to exercise its option to refinance in October 2011 approximately $74.2 million in collateralized financings with repurchase agreement financing in order to take advantage of the lower interest rate environment and reduce its overall borrowing costs. Approximately $23.7 million in the collateralized financings is a securitization financing bond issued by the Company in 1998 and which finances commercial mortgage loans included in the Company’s financial statements. The bond had recently been upgraded to ‘AA’ from ‘A+’ reflecting the high quality of the associated loan collateral. Overall the refinancing is expected to save the Company approximately $2.0 million annually in interest costs based on current anticipated market conditions and repurchase agreement financing terms (which are subject to change) and approximately $600,000 annually in amortization expense. The Company will take a one time non-cash charge of $2.0 million on the redemption of the securitization financing bond related to remaining unamortized discount recorded on the bond as of September 30, 2011. Consummation of the refinance is dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, interest rates, the Company obtaining repurchase agreement financing on terms and conditions acceptable to the Company and the condition of repurchase financing markets generally. Dynex Capital, Inc. is an internally managed real estate investment trust, or REIT, which invests in mortgage assets on a leveraged basis. The Company invests in Agency and non-Agency RMBS and CMBS. The Company also has investments in securitized single-family residential and commercial mortgage loans originated by the Company from 1992 to 1998. Additional information about Dynex Capital, Inc. is available at www.dynexcapital.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-workers at Fla. foreclose firm get class action
Class Action |
2011/09/28 10:34
|
Hundreds of former employees at a shuttered South Florida foreclosure law firm have been permitted by a judge to pursue a class action lawsuit involving labor law violations.
A Miami federal judge this week approved class action status for the case against attorney David J. Stern. Stern's firm was one of the biggest handling foreclosures in Florida, but it collapsed amid investigations into so-called "robo-signing" of documents and other alleged irregularities.
Hundreds of Stern's employees were laid off. The lawsuit contends the firm did not follow federal labor laws when it began mass firings.
The case involves at least 700 of Stern's former workers. They are seeking back pay, benefit reimbursements and other damages.
Stern's lawyers say the layoffs were done properly because of unforeseen circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rentech Announces Final Court Approvals of Settlements
Class Action |
2011/09/28 10:33
|
Rentech, Inc. announced today that it has received final court approvals for the settlements of the securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits against the Company and a number of its current and former directors and officers. The lawsuits related to the Company’s restatement in December 2009 of certain of its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009. The Company believed that it was in the best interests of its stockholders to settle the matters at a reasonable cost to avoid potentially protracted and expensive litigation. The Company and the individual defendants have denied any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations contained in these lawsuits.
The settlement for the consolidated class action lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW) provides for a settlement fund of $1.8 million, from which plaintiffs' counsel will receive an award of attorneys fees and expenses. The settlements for the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:10-cv-0485-GHK-PJW) and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Andrew L. Tarr v. Dennis L. Yakobson, et al., LASC Master File No. BC430553) provide that the Company adopt certain governance practices, and pay (or cause its insurance carrier to pay) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses of $300,000. Over 90% of the aggregate securities class action and shareholder derivative settlement payments are covered by Rentech’s insurance carriers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2011/09/26 09:41
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
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 plaintiffs’ 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/allostherapeutics. 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 Allos and its Board of Directors (the “Board”) with breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty under state law and the Board and AMAG with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Allos is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the development and commercialization of anti-cancer therapeutics.
The action arises from Allos and AMAG’s July 20, 2011 announcement that Allos had entered into a definitive merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) under which Allos would be acquired by AMAG in a transaction valued at approximately $260 million (the “Proposed Acquisition”). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Allos stockholders will receive a fixed ratio of 0.1282 shares of AMAG common stock for each share of Allos common stock held. The deal values Allos stock at $2.44 a share using AMAG’s prior closing price of $19.07. The complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition significantly undervalues Allos, as Allos shares traded as high as $4.21 as recently as January 12, 2011, and after the announcement of the Proposed Acquisition the price of AMAG common stock has fallen to $13.58 per share, giving the deal a real value of just $1.74 per Allos share.
The complaint further alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Acquisition, on August 22, 2011, defendants issued a materially false and misleading Preliminary Joint Proxy/Prospectus on Form S-4 (the “Proxy”). The Proxy, which recommends that Allos shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material information about the unfair sales process for the Company, conflicts of interest that corrupted the sales process, the unfair consideration offered in the Proposed Acquisition, and the actual intrinsic value of the Company on a stand-alone basis and as a merger partner for AMAG, in contravention of §§14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and/or defendants’ fiduciary duty of disclosure under state law.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all shareholders of Allos who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG (the “Class”). The plaintiffs are 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idaho inmates settle lawsuit over prison violence
Class Action |
2011/09/22 11:36
|
A potential class-action lawsuit against the nation's largest private prison company over allegations of violence at the Idaho Correctional Center has been settled in federal court.
The agreement between the inmates and Nashville, Tenn.-based Corrections Corporation of America was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Boise.
In it, CCA doesn't acknowledge the allegations but agrees to increase staffing, investigate all assaults and make other sweeping changes at the lockup south of Boise. If the company fails to make the changes, the inmates can ask the courts to force CCA to comply.
The inmates, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued last year on behalf of everyone incarcerated at the CCA-run state prison. They said the prison was so violent it was dubbed "Gladiator School," and that guards used inmate-on-inmate violence as a management tool and then denied prisoners medical care as a way to cover up the assaults.
CCA has denied all the allegations as part of the settlement, but the agreement is governed under a section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act which only applies in cases in which prisoners' constitutional rights have been violated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kona coffee dispute prompts class-action lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/09/20 23:37
|
A spat involving Safeway and Hawaii coffee growers is still brewing, even after the supermarket giant agreed to change labeling on its Kona blend coffee.
A $5 million class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Northern California claiming Safeway profited off the reputation of Kona coffee while selling an inferior product with very little Hawaii-grown coffee.
The lawsuit was filed Aug. 30, a day before Safeway's letter informing the Kona Coffee Farmers Association the company would change its packaging to reflect the percentage of Kona it contains. The farmers had called for a boycott of Safeway's 1,700 stores nationwide after a farmer saw the Kona blend for sale in a California store.
In an effort to protect a world-famous Hawaii product, the state's Board of Agriculture Chairman Russell Kokubun sent a letter to Safeway officials asking them to comply with a law here requiring labels to specify the percentage of Hawaii-grown coffee included in the blend. The law requires those blends have at least 10 percent Hawaii-grown coffee. But because Safeway's Kona blend isn't sold in any of the 19 Hawaii locations, Kokubun could only ask for voluntary compliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa hiring lawsuit begins Monday
Class Action |
2011/09/16 23:38
|
Trial in a class-action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against blacks is set to begin in a Polk County District courtroom.
Earlier this month, a judge rejected the state's request to throw out the lawsuit against the state.
Judge Robert Blink disagreed with the state's argument that the case was too broad be legally viable. He said the state agreed years ago to certify the case for class action.
The trial is expected to last three weeks.
The lawsuit was filed in 2007 by 14 people who claim they were denied state positions because they are black. It's grown to cover an estimated 6,000 blacks who sought employment or promotions with the state since 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
