Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Refco Shareholders Sue Law Firm Over IPO
Class Action | 2007/10/02 01:16

Refco Inc. shareholders on Monday sued the Chicago law firm that advised the company in its $583 million initial public offering in 2005, saying it knowingly participated in a fraud that "cost innocent investors hundreds of millions of dollars." The lawsuit is the latest salvo against the Mayer Brown firm, which served as Refco's chief legal adviser for a decade before the company collapsed into bankruptcy. The law firm also has been sued by a court-appointed bankruptcy administrator, and by the buyout firm Thomas H. Lee Partners.

The shareholders, led by the giant bond fund Pacific Investment Management Co., indicated for more than a year that they aimed to go after Mayer Brown, but previously refrained from identifying the firm in a class-action lawsuit against alleged perpetrators of the fraud that led to Refco's collapse. Last year, the shareholders said in court documents they expected to reach a settlement with Mayer Brown.

In their suit, filed with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the shareholders also listed Joseph Collins, a Mayer Brown partner, as a defendant. Mayer Brown employs about 1,400 lawyers in six countries. Collins is head of its derivatives group.

Collins wasn't available to comment Monday. In a statement, Mayer Brown said it intended to defend itself "with vigor" and is "confident of a positive resolution." It said it believes securities laws don't allow lawsuits to be brought "against an outside adviser where the company allegedly misrepresented its financial position."

Refco was once one of the biggest commodity brokerages in the United States. It collapsed in October 2005 - just two months after its IPO - amid allegations that its chief executive hid $430 million in bad debt. Federal prosecutors charged the executive, Philip Bennett, with fraud. Bennett, who was ousted from the company, pleaded not guilty. The company sold its key assets and has gone out of business.

Since then, a court-appointed official responsible for collecting funds on behalf of Refco's creditors has sued about dozen investment banks, accounting firms and other "insiders" that played a role in the company's IPO. The official, Marc Kirschner, has sought more than $1 billion in damages from those defendants, including Mayer Brown.

The Refco shareholders' allegations against Mayer Brown are similar to those in Kirschner's lawsuit. The shareholders said Refco's relationship with Mayer Brown began in 1994, when Collins brought the "Refco account" with him from a previous law firm. Because Mayer Brown billed Refco about $5 million a year, Refco was an "extremely lucrative" account.

The importance of that account led Collins to participate in a cover-up of "hundreds of millions of dollars" in bad debt at Refco, the shareholders' lawsuit said. Revealing those debts, by properly accounting for them, would have "threatened the company's survival" - and Collins' fees, the lawsuit said.

Collins became Bennett's "go-to guy" at Mayer Brown, working with him in "devising, documenting and concealing the massive fraudulent scheme that was intended to, and did, result in the false financial statements on which investors innocently relied."

"In return for tens of millions of dollars in legal fees from Refco, Collins and Mayer Brown abandoned their responsibilities as honest professionals and became willing participants in a fraudulent scheme that cost innocent investors hundreds of millions of dollars," the lawsuit said.



Apple Facing Class-Action Suits over iPhone Locking
Class Action | 2007/10/01 04:05
Apple has released a new update for the iPhone that turns it into a brick if the user runs the hack software on it that allows it to be used on any network. This of course has not pleased many users. They feel that they have bought the iPhone and have the right to use it on any network that they choose and maybe they are not pleased with AT&T and with to use another service. But this new Apple update denies their "right" to do so.

At least that's the claim of the users that have banded together to explore the possibility of a claim against Apple over their latest move to protect what it believes is it's legal right to keep its iPhone linked to AT&T. On Apple's iPhone discussion forums, a poster suggested this past weekend that a class-actions suit could be a possible action against Apple. The poster is seeking other like-minded people to join in his action or at least testing the water.

Others have posted that now that they have been warned about the update, they have no excuse. One poster stated that by taking their shiny new iPhone and knowingly messing with the warranty with some third-party software and turning it into a shiny new brick deserves no sympathy. They further point out that those who purchase the iPhone do so knowing that the only carrier is AT&T and should accept that or just not buy the phone.


Class Action Lawsuit Against LCA-Vision Inc.
Class Action | 2007/09/26 01:09

Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of LCA-Vision Inc. ("LCA" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LCAV) between February 12, 2007 and July 30, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of LCA.

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 this stock during the above referenced class period you have certain rights. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.



IMergent Agrees to Settle Class Action
Class Action | 2007/09/21 10:46

E-commerce software provider iMergent Inc. said Friday it has entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle a class action lawsuit against the company for $2.8 million. IMergent expects to pay the $2.8 million settlement to the class plaintiffs through the directors and officers insurance policy maintained by the company. As a result, iMergent said the settlement is not expected to affect the company's operating results.

According to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misleading statements and omissions, providing inaccurate financial information, and failing to make proper disclosures.

The initial class action suit was filed in 2005. The company denies liability.

The memorandum of understanding is subject to certain contingencies that require court approval, including a provision that prevents its former independent auditors Grant Thornton LLP from prosecuting any claims against the company related to the litigation.



Market volatility spurs class action
Class Action | 2007/09/14 11:45

Employees participating in Countrywide Financial Corporation's 401(k) plan have filed a class-action lawsuit claiming the firm lost millions of dollars of their pension money during the recent market volatility. The case is against the mortgage company, its CEO, Angelo Mozilo, and all those responsible for overseeing the employees' retirement plan. Workers alleged illegal actions by the firm caused thousands of 401(k) plan participants to lose millions, after the company's stock plummeted when its financial situation became clear.

It was further alleged that while Mozilo and the insider-appointed benefits committee members had a fiduciary responsibility to warn employees of the company's precarious financial health, they hid information from plan participants.

Financial statements were also alleged to have been certified by Mozilo in an attempt to conceal the high-risk loans it was selling.

Steve Berman, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said: "Most of these employees weren't risk takers, rather claims processors and line staff who go to work every morning, putting a little away every month for retirement, or to finance a child's education."

Countrywide Financial Corporation responded by saying that it had not yet seen the lawsuit, and did not generally comment on specific points of pending litigation.

A spokesperson said: " From what we can discern from the news release put out by the public relations firm for plaintiffs’ counsel, we do not believe the case has merit, and we will defend it vigorously.

“Countrywide values its work force, which we believe is among the most dedicated and talented in our industry, and we believe our 401(k) program is properly structured and provides competitive benefits to employee participants."



EMC Faces Class-Action Lawsuit
Class Action | 2007/09/13 04:59

EMC Corp. could face a sexual discrimination class action lawsuit, if a judge opens an existing case up to other female EMC workers, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.
Two women filed a lawsuit against the IT giant in 2004, alleging discrimination and harassment. On Monday, a judge for the U.S. District Court in Northern Illinois will hear arguments about whether to allow other women who worked in sales at EMC from 2001 to 2004 to join the suit, according to the Journal.

In a letter posted to EMC's Web site, Joe Tucci, the company's chairman, president and CEO strongly denied that discrimination or harassment happened or continue to occur at the company. "EMC has long been committed to maintaining a workplace free of discrimination and harassment, with significant opportunities for every employee to succeed and grow," he wrote.

He said that during the four years covered by the case, women sales reps at the company in the U.S. earned, on average, more than their male counterparts. Since 2001, the number of women at the vice president and senior vice president levels has more than doubled and the number of women at the director level has nearly tripled, he wrote.

However, the suit filed by former sales representatives Tami Remien and Debra Fletcher paints a very different picture. At the time they filed the suit, they said just one of EMC's most senior executives was a woman and that the Chicago sales office of 30 had at most six women.

Remien's managers, according to the suit, denied her the engineering and managerial support that her male counterparts received, took accounts that she had begun selling products to and gave them to less successful male sales people, and was told that she couldn't take on certain accounts because she didn't tolerate strip clubs, hunt, fish, drink or smoke. She claims that when she complained to human resources, her managers retaliated by taking away essentially all of her accounts and continued to deny her support.

She also claims that her boss often shouted gender-based obscenities at her and called her stupid.

Fletcher had similar experiences under the same manager. She also once made a large sale but her commission was given to a male co-worker because he had a family, according to the suit. One account was taken away from her after she was falsely accused of having a sexual relationship with the client, the suit claims.

Both women were let go from their jobs at EMC after being left with no accounts or with accounts that didn't generate revenue.



Tarragon faces class action suit
Class Action | 2007/09/12 19:00

A San Diego law firm said it filed a class action lawsuit Tuesday against Tarragon Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Tarragon's common stock between January 5, 2005, and Aug. 9, 2007. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP alleges Tarragon and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results.

A Tarragon spokesman said it's the company's policy not to comment on pending litigation.

The complaint claims Tarragon stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of $26.76 a share on July 22, 2005, as a result of defendants' false statements. The stock then fell, reaching 94 cents a share on Aug. 9, when Tarragon said its quarterly report would be delayed to give the company time to evaluate more than $125 million in property impairment charges and other write-downs made necessary by its decision to sell properties under adverse market conditions.

Tarragon and its subsidiaries are active in the Northeast, Florida, Texas and Tennessee.

Fort Lauderdale-based subsidiary Tarragon South is the developer of Las Olas River House, a high-rise in downtown Fort Lauderdale that was completed last year, but still has at least 22 units up for sale; and a planned mixed-use project with a condo tower on the site of the Gay & Lesbian Community Center on Andrews Avenue in Fort Lauderdale.

Tarragon is also an equity partner with Coscan Homes in Orchid Grove, a condo and townhouse community under construction in Pompano Beach.



[PREV] [1] ..[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59].. [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