Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuits
Class Action | 2011/08/26 10:07
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is investigating potential securities law violations as alleged in class action lawsuits brought on behalf of all purchasers of American Depository Shares (“ADS”) of SinoTech Energy Limited (“SinoTech” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:CTE - News) between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011 (the “Class Period”), including purchasers of SinoTech ADSs in the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”) on November 3, 2010.

If you purchased or acquired SinoTech ADSs during the Class Period and/or in the IPO, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than October 18, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

SinoTech shareholders who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.





Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action | 2011/08/23 10:23
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against SinoTech Energy Limited in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) of SinoTech pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”) on November 3, 2010, including open-market purchasers of SinoTech ADSs between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

The Complaint charges SinoTech, certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. SinoTech provides enhanced oil recovery services to oil companies in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that certain representations made in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially inaccurate. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company’s reported sales and revenues were materially inaccurate, because the nature, size and scope of the Company’s business was materially exaggerated.

On August 16, 2011, a research report was published on the Internet questioning SinoTech’s previously issued financial statements and future prospects. The report alleged that: (1) SinoTech’s sole import agent, accounting for over $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, appears to be an empty shell company with no sign of operation, a limited import history and negligible revenue base; (2) the Company’s only chemical supplier is an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company’s five largest subcontracting customers, which provide the vast majority of SinoTech’s revenues, appear to be shell companies with 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; and (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions.

On this news, ADSs of SinoTech declined more than 40%, to close on August 16, 2011, at $2.35 per share. Thereafter, NASDAQ halted trading of the Company’s stock.

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 ADSs of SinoTech between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until October 18, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.

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.



Lawsuit Over Idaho's Mental Health Care for Kids Revived
Class Action | 2011/08/22 10:24
A federal appeals court has revived a decades-old lawsuit against the state of Idaho over claims of substandard children's mental health care.

The case began in 1980 when a little boy known only as Jeff D. brought a class-action lawsuit against the state for institutionalizing mentally ill children instead of providing care for them. In Wednesday's ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the lower court must consider whether the state was meeting the larger goals of providing community-based mental health care to indigent children with severe emotional and mental disabilities.

Idaho Deputy Attorney General Michael Gilmore said he couldn't immediately comment on the ruling because his office was still reviewing it. The attorney representing Jeff D. said the ruling was a vindication for children with severe emotional disturbances and their families.







Berman DeValerio Announces Securities Class Action
Class Action | 2011/08/22 10:23
The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action lawsuit today against Miller Energy Resources, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of common stock from December 16, 2009 through and including August 1, 2011 (the “Class Period”).

Berman DeValerio (www.bermandevalerio.com) brought the complaint against the Company and certain of its directors and officers (the “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The case is filed as 3:11-cv-00397.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as the lead plaintiff are required to file a motion for appointment with the court no later than October 11, 2011.

The claims arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for class period purchasers.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Miller, an oil and gas exploration, production and drilling firm, and the other Defendants made material false statements about Miller’s financial results and about the valuation of certain oil-and-gas-producing assets it acquired in Alaska. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants: (1) issued false and misleading consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and cash flows; (2) failed to properly classify royalty expenses; (3) failed to properly record sufficient compensation expense on equity awards; (4) did not properly calculate the liability for derivative instruments; (5) did not properly consolidate entities under its control; and (6) improperly reported the value of certain oil and gas assets that it acquired in Alaska. As a result of these problems, the Company was required to restate its financial results. Over a series of almost daily disclosures occurring on July 28, 2011, July 29, 2011 and August 1, 2011, Miller’s stock price dropped from $7.04 per share on July 27, 2011 to a close of $3.37 per share on August 2, 2011, a total drop of $3.67 or 52%.

To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio at (800) 516-9926.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 11, 2011, request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. In addition, you may contact the attorneys at Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interests in the case. Please note: you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member.

Berman DeValerio is a national law firm representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers, chiefly for violations of securities and antitrust laws. The firm has 49 lawyers in Boston, San Francisco and South Florida.


Monster iPhone location lawsuit filed against Apple
Class Action | 2011/08/18 09:22
More than 20,000 South Korean iPhone users have filed a class action lawsuit against US technology giant Apple for alleged privacy violations over the collection of location data, a law firm said.

The suit came after lawyer Kim Hyung-Suk was awarded one million won (US $950) in compensation in June, the first such payout by Apple's Korean unit, following an interim order by a court in the southeastern city of Changwon.

Kim has since led online preparations for a class action suit against Apple and its South Korean unit.

"The suit accuses Apple of breaching articles 10 and 17 of the constitution that ensure pursuit of happiness and protection of privacy, and the South Korean law on protection of location data," a spokesman for Kim's firm Miraelaw said. The suit involves 26,691 people demanding one million won each.



$168 million securities fraud settlement proposed
Class Action | 2011/08/12 10:30
The New York State Common Retirement Fund has announced a proposed $168 million settlement of its securities fraud class-action lawsuit against National City Corp. alleging misrepresentations to investors.

State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, trustee of the $146.5 billion fund and lead plaintiff, says the defendants agreed to the settlement but admitted no wrongdoing.

PNC Financial Services Group Inc., which bought Cleveland-based National City in 2008, declined to comment.

The suit alleges National City misrepresented the quality of its mortgages and home equity loans and the severity of its losses.

The settlement is expected to go before U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. in the Northern District of Ohio for preliminary approval in the next few weeks, with all class members notified after that.





Bank of America starts overdraft rebate outreach
Class Action | 2011/08/09 09:21
If you had a Bank of America account with a debit card between January 2001 and May of this year, you may be due some cash.

The nation's largest bank has started contacting customers who may be entitled to a refund. It recently reached a class-action settlement over the way it charged overdraft fees. Most of the other suits are continuing to work their way through federal court in Florida.

Bank of America agreed to set up a $410 million fund to settle the lawsuit. The money will be used to pay back customers who were charged overdraft fees as a result of the company's policy of processing debit card transactions based on the size of the transaction, rather than when the purchases occurred.

The bank is one of about three dozen named in a series of class-action lawsuits over the practice of "reordering." A policy that became widespread in the 2000s, reordering involves deducting purchases from an account starting with the largest dollar amount first. That means a customer may end up paying additional overdraft fees.

For instance, someone with an account balance of $95 and who made three purchases in one day, the first for $5, the next for $25 and the last for $75, would be charged two overdraft fees, rather than one.

The suits claim that reordering was done to intentionally increase the number of overdraft fees collected. Banks took in about $39 billion in overdraft fees annually before the Federal Reserve put new rules in place last year. Now banks are required to obtain a customer's written permission before providing overdraft protection.

To inform customers that they may be eligible for a refund of some overdraft fees, Bank of America is sending postcards to customers with a brief explanation of the settlement and the address of a website where more information is available.



[PREV] [1] ..[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33].. [65] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..
PA high court orders countie..
Tight US House races in Cali..
North Carolina Attorney Gene..
Republicans take Senate majo..
What to know about the unpre..
A man who threatened to kill..
Ford cuts 2024 earnings guid..
Kenya’s deputy president pl..
South Korean court acquits f..
Supreme Court grapples with ..
Supreme Court leaves in plac..
Kentucky sheriff accused of ..
New rules regarding election..
North Carolina appeals court..


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.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design