Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Milberg Weiss Investigates 401(k) Savings Plan
Class Action | 2007/11/14 15:17
The law firm of Milberg Weiss LLP is investigating possible illegal conduct relating to The First American Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan. Specifically, Milberg Weiss is investigating whether certain fiduciaries of the plan may have violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in at least two ways: (1) by allowing employee participants to invest in First American common stock when it was not prudent to do so, and (2) by failing to disclose First American’s problems.

The Milberg investigation relates to certain facts alleged in the lawsuit filed on November 1, 2007 by the Attorney General of the State of New York against First American Corporation (NYSE:FAF) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, eAppraiseIT. The suit alleges that First American Corporation violated federal and state laws by conspiring with Washington Mutual to inflate real estate appraisals. Disturbingly, evidence collected by the Attorney General, including internal emails, are alleged to show that eAppraiseIT executives knew that their scheme was illegal.

If you have an individual account with The First American Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan and your account holds First American Corporation common stock, you may have legal claims under ERISA.

Milberg Weiss LLP has been representing individual and institutional investors for nearly 40 years and serves as lead counsel in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Please visit the Milberg Weiss website (http://www.milbergweiss.com) for more information about the firm. If you wish to discuss this matter with us, or have any questions concerning your rights and interests with regard to this matter, please contact the following attorneys:

Lori G. Feldman
Anita B. Kartalopoulos
Milberg Weiss LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.

New York, NY, 10119-0165
Phone number: (800) 320-5081
Email: contactus@milbergweiss.com

Website: http://www.milbergweiss.com


Peterson & Associates Advises Defibrilator Users
Class Action | 2007/11/14 12:20
Kansas City basedlaw firm, Peterson & Associates, P.C. (www.petersonlawfirm.com), is advising of recent news indicating the critical effects and possible death to those whom have a Medtronic Sprint Fidelis Defibrillator with faulty leads. The FDA issued a class I recall of Medtronic Sprint Fidelis Defibrillator leads because fractures have been detected in some leads. Models 6930, 6931, 6948 and 6949 are currently among the recall.

Reports have indicated that if a defibrillator lead breaks it may deliver unnecessary shocks or may fail to operate at all, which could result in death.

To determine if you have a defective lead, first research your card that identifies the model number of your defibrillator lead. Also, you can call your doctor who implanted your defibrillator and ask what types of leads were used with your defibrillator. Or, you may receive a letter from Medtronic.

If you believe you or someone you know has been a potential defibrillator lead, schedule a medical examination immediately. If you are amongst this recall you may be entitled to recover monetary compensation. All legal claims are subject to time limits so don't delay. A delay in filing a claim may result in the forfeiture and right you may have to compensation.

Peterson & Associates, P.C. is a leading products liability and personal injury law firm that has collected over $300 million in settlements and judgments for its clients. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri on the Country Club Plaza, Peterson & Associates, P.C., represents clients nationwide. Under the guidance of the firm's
president, David M. Peterson, Peterson & Associates, P.C. has collected compensation for thousands of clients who have suffered injuries from using dangerous medications and medical devices. The Firm is currently evaluating claims for clients injured by many dangerous pharmaceuticals and medical devices, such as users of the birth control patch Ortho Evra who suffered a heart attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism, individuals who developed adverse reactions from either Ketek or Tequin, people developing Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) or Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (PPH), those who suffered a heart attack while on Avandia, individuals who received recalled implantable cardiac devices manufactured by Guidant, Medtronic and St. Jude, as well as individuals exposed to Benzene who developed leukemia or Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, to name a few.

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.


Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action | 2007/11/13 01:28
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Office Depot, Inc. ("Office Depot" or the "Company") between April 26, 2007 and October 26, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Office Depot's business and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Office Depot securities.

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 Office Depot common stock between April 26, 2007 and October 26, 2007, you have certain rights, and have until January 4, 2008, 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



Warner Chilcott Settling Class-Action
Class Action | 2007/11/13 01:26
Specialty pharmaceutical company Warner Chilcott Ltd. said Friday it reached a tentative settlement in an antitrust lawsuit involving its contraceptive Ovcon 35.

The settlement is part of a class-action lawsuit brought by direct purchasers, the company said.

Under the proposal, all claims will be dismissed and the class action lawsuit will be terminated for a cash payment of $9 million.

The deal is still subject to negotiation.



Office Depot Faces Purported Class Action Suit
Class Action | 2007/11/06 01:10

Shareholders of Office Depot Inc. (ODP) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Florida against the company seeking class-action status and damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws.

Saxena White P.A., representing shareholders that acquired Office Depot securities between April 26, 2006 and Oct. 26., said an announcement concerning the delayed release of the 2007 third-quarter report due to an independent review of vendor program funds led to a falling stock price.

A company spokesperson declined to comment on the suit.



Stull, Stull & Brody Announces Class Action
Class Action | 2007/10/26 01:05

Attorney Advertising. Notice is hereby given that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Aetna Inc. ("Aetna" or the "Company") (NYSE: AET) between October 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Stull, Stull & Brody has substantial experience representing employees who suffered losses from purchases of their employer's stock in their 401(k) plans. If you bought Aetna securities through your Aetna retirement account and have information or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact us.

The Complaint charges Aetna and certain of its officers and directors with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the second half of 2005 Aetna touted its expanding membership rolls as a primary reason for an increase in operating income.

During the Class Period, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the rise in Aetna's medical cost ratio ("MCR"), which is the percentage of dollars a company spends on healthcare, including physician reimbursement, and is the key number for health plans in terms of their level of profitability. Unbeknownst to investors, however, from at least as early as September 2005 defendants had in their possession information that contradicted, or rendered false, statements made by the defendants throughout the Class Period.

On April 27, 2006, the Company shocked the market when it disclosed a rise in its MCR relative to the prior year. This higher MCR coupled with large membership growth meant that the Company was under-pricing its health plans in order to speed up enrollment. This fact, which the defendants knew by September 2005, was conspicuously absent from defendants' public disclosures between October 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006. From April 26, 2006 to April 27, 2006, Aetna's shares fell from $46.43 per share to $37.00 per share, a decline of $9.43 per share, or more than 20 percent, representing a loss in market capitalization of $5.4 billion.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Aetna securities during the Class Period, which is between October 27, 2005 and April 26, 2007, inclusive. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aetna securities during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transactions or continue to hold the securities, you may wish to serve as a lead plaintiff. If you purchased Aetna securities during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by no later than December 24, 2007.

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 proposed lead plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the other class members, and that the proposed lead plaintiff 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 Stull, Stull & Brody, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws in federal courts over the past 30 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. Stull, Stull & Brody maintains offices in New York and Los Angeles.



Another class action filed in Melvindale spill
Class Action | 2007/10/24 02:34

Children are among the plaintiffs of a fourth class action filed against the company responsible for last week’s chemical leak in Melvindale. The plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit — who were evacuated from their homes and schools — accuse Reilly Plating of negligence, causing a nuisance and trespassing.
They are seeking more than $25,000 each in monetary damages and charge that the plant produced unreasonable odor and noise, damaged their property by releasing the chemical and interfered with their peace, comfort and right to use and enjoy their property.

An estimated 500 to 3,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid escaped Oct. 16 and forced the evacuation of about 3,000 residents.

According to court documents, the incident caused the plaintiffs “humiliation, outrage and indignity.”

The evacuation was a precaution government officials decided to take, Reilly Plating spokesman Leland Bassettcq both said Tuesday.

The company has been “a constructive and solid neighbor for 60 years,” he said. “All containment devices worked exactly as they’re designed to work.”



[PREV] [1] ..[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57].. [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