|
|
|
Maine agrees to help disabled live independently
Class Action |
2011/09/07 08:58
|
The state of Maine has agreed to a plan that will help some of the state's disabled residents receive services that will let them live outside nursing homes.
In a settlement to a class-action lawsuit, the Department of Health and Human Services agreed to provide disabled people with normal mental function, the same level of services available to Mainers with mental retardation or other developmental disabilities.
The lawsuit was originally brought by three men with physical disabilities but normal mental function. The case eventually involved more than 40 people. The lawsuit alleged that MaineCare violated federal law by refusing to pay for support services that would allow the plaintiffs to live in a community setting instead of in nursing homes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AVX Myrtle Beach suit now class action
Class Action |
2011/09/03 08:56
|
As many as 229 property owners in Myrtle Beach could become plaintiffs in a lawsuit against electronics manufacturer AVX Corp. that alleges the company contaminated groundwater.
The Sun News of Myrtle beach reported a state judge this week certified the suit as a class action.
The four-year-old lawsuit suit says the company polluted groundwater with an industrial degreaser linked to cancer and other health problems. The lawsuit contends the pollution ruined property values in a 12-block area near the old AVX plant. The suit is not expected to be heard until next year.
AVX settled a separate lawsuit with an adjacent property owner earlier this year while a third contamination lawsuit is pending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
$6.5 billion Sino-Forest class action suit launched
Class Action |
2011/09/01 09:40
|
Lawyers representing plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit against Sino-Forest Corp. (TSX:TRE) have filed a statement of claim against the Chinese timber operator, seeking more than $7.37 billion in damages.
Law firms Koskie Minsky LLP and Siskinds LLP filed the claim in Ontario superior court, alleging that executives conspired to inflate share prices, and accusing the troubled forestry company of making misrepresentations about its operations.
The Ontario Securities Commission halted trading of shares in the forestry company on the Toronto Stock Exchange last week, after accusing it of fraud.
The law suit seeks money for those who bought Sino-Forest shares on the stock market and through the company's public offering.
"The securities sold by Sino via the offerings were sold at artificially inflated prices as a result of the representation and the other misrepresentations," the statement of claim said.
The allegations against Sino-Forest have not been proven in court. The company did not return a call requesting comment Wednesday.
The claim names several Sino-Forest executives, including former CEO Allen Chan; auditor Ernst & Young; and financial institutions that had acted as underwriters for the company's 2009 prospectus offering. They include TD Securities, Dundee Securities, RBC Securities, Scotia Capital, and CIBC World Markets.
"The underwriters earned fees from the class, whether directly or indirectly, for work that they never performed or that they performed with gross negligence, in connection with the offerings, or some of them," according to the statement of claim.
"Sino, E&Y and the individual defendants further breached their duty of care as they failed to maintain appropriate internal controls to ensure that Sino’s disclosure documents adequately and fairly presented the business and affairs of Sino on a timely basis," it said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2011/08/30 09:26
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of the purchasers of Juniper Networks, Inc. who purchased shares between July 20, 2010 and July 26, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/jnpr. Juniper designs, develops, and sells products and services that provide network infrastructure used for the deployment of services and applications over a single Internet Protocol based network worldwide. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Juniper issued materially false and misleading information concerning the Company's business practices and financial results. Defendants repeatedly assured investors that Juniper was well positioned to deliver against its long-term model of 20% or higher revenue growth and 25% or higher operating margin, while failing to disclose negative trends in Juniper’s business. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Juniper’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Then on July 26, 2011, Juniper issued a press release reporting disappointing financial results which were far below previous guidance. On this news, shares of Juniper dropped 21% to close at $24.66 per share. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 15, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. 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 Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information about the case or to participate online, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/jnpr or contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2011/08/30 09:24
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against SinoTech Energy Limited, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters.
The lawsuit, which is captioned Crayder v. SinoTech Energy Limited, et al., 11-CV-05935, alleges violations of the United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of SinoTech's American Depository Shares ("ADSs") from November 3, 2010 through August 16, 2011 (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of ADSs in the Company's November 3, 2010 initial public offering (the "November IPO"). Claims for November IPO purchasers arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Claims for other Class Period purchasers fall under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The lawsuit asserts numerous problems with SinoTech's previously issued financial statements and declarations about its future prospects. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that: (1) the Company's sole import agent, which accounted for more than $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company's only chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company's largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast majority of SinoTech's revenues, has unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (6) positive statements the Company made regarding its internal financial controls were false and misleading.
On August 16, 2011, a research analyst writing under the name Alfred Little published an investigative report (the "Report") detailing these and other problems at SinoTech. The day the Report was issued, the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40%, falling from $4.02 per share on August 15, 2011 to $2.35 per share at the close of trading on August 16, 2011 - a decline of $1.67 per share on unusually high trading volume. The NASDAQ halted SinoTech trading after the market closed on August 16, 2011, announcing that trading would remain halted until the Company "fully satisfied NASDAQ's request for additional information." To date, trading has not resumed.
If you purchased the common stock of SinoTech and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 18, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this action, or you may do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and West Palm Beach, and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation.
The firm’s reputation for excellence has repeatedly been recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total over a billion dollars. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For more information visit www.cohenmilstein.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder Class Action Filed Against WebMD Health Corp.
Class Action |
2011/08/30 02:24
|
The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WebMD Health Corp., who purchased or otherwise acquired WebMD securities between February 23, 2011 and July 15, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the Complaint or join this class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.
Members of the class may, not later than October 3, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class. 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported 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.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the class action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2011/08/29 09:26
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Ener1, Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the “Class”) consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Ener1 between January 10, 2011 and August 15, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Ener1 designs, develops and manufactures high-performance batteries and battery pack systems. In 2009 and 2010, Ener1 made separate investments in electric-vehicle manufacturer Think Global, AS and its majority owner Think Holdings, AS. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that, among other things: (1) Think Global lacked adequate operating capital, and the ability to raise capital, to continue operations; (2) as a result, Ener1 failed to timely impair the value of its Think Holdings investments; (3) as a result, the outstanding loans receivable and accounts receivable due from Think Holdings and Think Global were uncollectible; (4) as such, the Company’s financial statements were misstated and its financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); and (5), as a result, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 15, 2011, Ener1 disclosed that the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010 and for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 should no longer be relied upon and should be restated. The determination was made following an assessment of certain accounting matters related to the loans receivable owed to Ener1 by Think Holdings and accounts receivable owed to Ener1 by Think Global held by the Company, and the timing of the recognition of the impairment charge related to the Company’s investment in Think Holdings originally recorded during the quarter ended March 31, 2011. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Ener1 securities between January 10, 2011 and August 15, 2011, you have until October 17, 2011 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at 215-638-4847, Toll-Free at 888-638-4847, by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.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
|
|