|
|
|
Seyfarth Shaw's Workplace Class Action Litigation Report
Legal Marketing |
2012/01/08 10:00
|
Leading employment law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP has issued its annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, covering a charged national landscape of "bet the company" employment disputes fueled by an aggressive plaintiffs' bar, invigorated federal and state enforcement regimes, a sluggish economic recovery, and several groundbreaking rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 that are certain to reverberate in the year ahead and beyond.
Seyfarth notes that the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, handed down last June, has already been cited more than 260 times in federal and state court opinions, and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion 215 times -- remarkable figures for rulings less than a year old. Dukes, which established a new standard for certifying class actions, and Concepcion , which held that federal arbitration law supersedes limitations imposed by individual states, opened the floodgates to a wave a new case law in class actions, which will continue to evolve in the coming year and impact litigants for years to come.
Released this week, Seyfarth's 8th annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report examines the theoretical and strategic uncertainties stemming from the Supreme Court's employment law rulings in 2011, and the challenges they pose for companies and their defense counsel. The new Report is the most comprehensive yet, examining 976 class action decisions rendered in the past 12 months by federal and state courts, including private plaintiff and government enforcement actions. The number of case rulings covered by Seyfarth climbed 15% over last year's total of 849 -- a direct result of issues raised by Dukes and Concepcion that have loomed over workplace litigation since those landmark decisions last spring.
Seyfarth's Report remains the sole compendium dedicated exclusively to labor and employment class action litigation in the U.S. Regarded as "the definitive source on employment class action litigation" (EPLiC Magazine, Spring 2011), it has become the "go-to" research and resource guide for businesses and corporate counsel facing complex litigation. Corporate counsel routinely depict the prospect of large workplace class-actions as especially worrisome for companies, as well as a significant burden for in-house legal budgets.
Seyfarth Shaw has over 750 attorneys located in 10 offices throughout the United States , including: Atlanta , Boston , Chicago , Houston , Los Angeles , New York , Sacramento , San Francisco and Washington, D.C. , as well as internationally in London . Seyfarth Shaw provides a broad range of legal services in the areas of labor and employment, employee benefits, litigation, corporate and real estate. The firm's clients include over 300 of the Fortune 500 companies, and our practice reflects virtually every industry and segment of the economy. For more information, please visit www.seyfarth.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
King & Spalding Continues International Arbitration Expansion
Legal Marketing |
2012/01/02 15:25
|
The international law firm King & Spalding announced today that international arbitration expert Jan K. Schäfer has joined as a partner in its Frankfurt office.
Schäfer comes to King & Spalding from the Frankfurt office of Allen & Overy, where he focused on complex post-M&A arbitration matters as well as foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes. He brings deep experience in arbitration under ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration) and ICSID rules in multiple venues as well as ad hoc proceedings under both German and Swiss arbitration law. He regularly sits as chairman, party-appointed and sole arbitrator in ICC and DIS arbitration proceedings, and advocates before the German courts on behalf of clients in commercial litigation and arbitration-related matters.
King & Spalding has significantly expanded its global footprint in international arbitration in recent years. The firm opened an office in Paris, a key hub for international commercial arbitration, in 2009 with the hiring of former Dewey & LeBoeuf partners Eric Schwartz, the former secretary-general of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, and James Castello. Former Shearman & Sterling arbitration partner John Savage joined in 2010 to lead the firm's international arbitration practice in Asia from a new office in Singapore, while Tom Sprange joined from Steptoe & Johnson in 2011 to anchor its London arbitration and litigation practice. Former ICC International Court of Arbitration general counsel Guillermo Aguilar-Alvarez also joined the firm in New York, further strengthening King & Spalding's global bench in both commercial and treaty arbitration.
About King & Spalding
Celebrating more than 125 years of service, King & Spalding is an international law firm that represents a broad array of clients, including half of the Fortune Global 100, with 800 lawyers in 17 offices in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. The firm has handled matters in over 160 countries on six continents and is consistently recognized for the results it obtains, uncompromising commitment to quality and dedication to understanding the business and culture of its clients. More information is available at www.kslaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brower Piven Announces Investigation of El Paso Corp.
Legal Marketing |
2011/10/17 02:56
|
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty to current shareholders of El Paso Corporation and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of El Paso relating to the proposed acquisition of the company by Kinder Morgan, Inc. The firm’s investigation seeks to determine whether El Paso’s Board breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value.
On October 16, 2011, El Paso and KMI jointly announced that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement whereby KMI will acquire all outstanding shares of El Paso for $26.87 per share based on the closing prices of each of the companies on October 14, 2011. The joint press release stated that the agreement provides that El Paso shareholders will receive for each of their shares $14.65 in cash plus 0.4187 KMI shares and 0.640 KMI warrants with a five-year term exercisable at $40.00 per share.
According to the joint press release, while under all circumstances El Paso shareholders will receive 0.640 KMI warrants per El Paso share held, subject to proration, El Paso shareholders will be able to elect, for each El Paso share held, either (i) $25.91 in cash, (ii) 0.9635 shares of KMI common stock, or (iii) $14.65 in cash plus 0.4187 shares of KMI common stock. According to the joint release, El Paso’s board, two members of which will join the KMI board after the transaction closes, has agreed not to solicit competing transactions. Further, under certain circumstances, according to the companies, KMI will receive a termination fee of $650 million, or over $0.90 per El Paso share, from El Paso. According to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a price target for El Paso of $28 per share.
If you own El Paso common stock and would like to learn more about the investigation being conducted by Brower Piven, you may email or call Brower Piven, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact Brower Piven by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com, by calling 410/415-6616, or at Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153.
Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating securities and other class action cases of over 60 years.
hoffman@browerpiven.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Omnicare, Inc.
Legal Marketing |
2011/09/27 10:34
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Omnicare, Inc. (“Omnicare” or the “Company”) between January 10, 2007 and August 5, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Omnicare provides pharmaceuticals, and related pharmacy and ancillary services to long-term healthcare institutions. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Omnicare and certain of its executive officers misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse information concerning Omnicare’s business and financial condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement to the federal Medicare program, and to several state Medicaid programs, for services that did not conform with Medicare and Medicaid regulations, while repeatedly representing that Omnicare was operating in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The Complaint further alleges that Omnicare’s reported net sales and accounts receivable throughout the Class Period were artificially inflated as they included the proceeds of the nonconforming Medicare and Medicaid claims.
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 Omnicare common stock between January 10, 2007 and August 5, 2010, you have certain rights, and have until October 24, 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, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Law Firm of Levi & Korsinsky Notifies Investors
Legal Marketing |
2011/09/21 13:36
|
Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division on behalf of purchasers of Penson Worldwide, Inc. common stock from February 20, 2011 through August 4, 2011.
Prior to and during the Class Period, Penson derived a material part of its revenue and income from interest it received on margin loans to customers for which its customers pledged collateral in return for such loans.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding and concealed from investors that, by at least the end of 2010, a) the Company had approximately $96-97 million in receivables ("Nonaccrual Receivables") of which approximately $43 million were collateralized by illiquid securities and therefore unlikely to be collected; b) the Company's Nonaccrual Receivables were materially overstated and should have been written down at least by the end of 2010; c) as a result, the Company's reported income and EBITDA were materially overstated; and d) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
If you are a member of the class and suffered a loss in Penson stock, you have until October 24, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information about your rights, contact Joseph Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit http://www.zlk.com/penson-worldwide-pnsn.html.
Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud and represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder litigation. For more information, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed below. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Filed Against Former, Current A&P Execs
Legal Marketing |
2011/09/19 23:37
|
A class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Inc. (A&P) for the period between July 23, 2009, and Dec. 10, 2010. The complaint, filed Sept. 9 by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, Philadelphia and Atlanta, claims that some former and current A&P executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A&P itself wasn’t named as a defendant in the action because it filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2010.
Those named in the action are former Executive Chairman and CEO Christian Haub, former CEO and President Eric Claus, former CFO and Treasurer Brenda Galgano, Vice Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer Andreas Guldin, former CEO and President Ron Marshall, and current CEO and President Sam Martin.
The complaint alleges that during the period mentioned above, the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the class action alleges that the executives failed to reveal that A&P was facing increased low-cost competition from retailers such as Walmart and Target, which negatively affected its business and financial condition; that the Pathmark acquisition was a “complete disaster” for the company, as Pathmark’s operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to investors; that A&P wasn’t operating according to internal expectations and couldn’t achieve the guidance endorsed by the defendants; and that, as a result of these factors, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company, its operations and prospects.
The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of A&P securities during the period noted above. Those who are member of this class can view a copy of the complaint or join the class action online at www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aandp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Killing Time" An 18 Year Odyssey from Death Row to Freedom
Legal Marketing |
2011/05/25 13:10
|
According to Harry Connick Sr, the former New Orleans District Attorney for 30 years, Angola's death row isn't such a bad place for an innocent man to spend 14 years, according to the New Orleans DA's office. Connick stated that John Thompson did not deserve the $14 million a jury awarded him, because nobody raped him and he got to play chess and watch TV. He wasn't denied medical treatment and made several pals in prison, prosecutors argued in an appeal brief. Our question to former DA Connick....How much would it have been worth it to you if you had spent the last 14 years of your life for a crime you were "FRAMED By" The New Orleans District Attorney's Office?
Thompson was railroaded in 1983, when Harry Connick was DA. In 2007, Thompson, who was wrongfully convicted of murder by Connick's DA office due to evidence withholding, was awarded a $14 million verdict by a federal court jury.
The jury found "that Thompson's 18 years behind bars (14 of which he spent in solitary confinement on death row) were caused by Connick's deliberate failure to train his prosecutors on their obligations to turn over exculpatory evidence"
"Killing Time-an 18 Year Odyssey from Death Row to Freedom" is a sobering look at our justice system, told with journalistic precision by our Guest John Hollway and his writing partner Ronald Gauthier. Told in careful timeline fashion, it details the story of John Thompson, an African American who was, in 1984, wrongfully convicted of the brutal murder of a New Orleans Hotelier, and sent, under a death sentence to Angola Prison to await execution. Thompson adamantly and unceasingly proclaimed his innocence. After Philadelphia lawyers Michael Banks and Gordon Cooney take on his case, they struggle to find areas of misconduct in his previous trials while grappling with their questions about Thompson's innocence. John Hollway and Ronald M. Gauthier have interviewed Thompson and the lawyers, and paint a realistic and compelling portrait of life on death row and the corruption in the Louisiana police and DA's office.
John Thompson, having been exonerated and freed thanks to the work of Attorneys Banks and Cooney is now deeply involved in the organization Resurrection After Exoneration or REA. He, once again, lives in Louisiana.
The Orleans Parish DA's office appealed and the case, Connick v. Thompson, was orally argued before the U.S. Supreme Court during the October 2010 term. By a 5-4 vote split along ideological lines,[6] the Supreme Court overturned the $14 million award in a decision issued on March 29, 2011.
The majority opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas construed the series of admitted violations to not amount to a pattern of similar violations of Brady v. Maryland (1963), and such a pattern was necessary to hold Connick liable for the incompetence of his employees.
The dissenting opinion, read from the bench by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noted that Connick's office had in fact committed a pattern of violations, to wit:
• Failing to disclose exculpatory blood-type evidence,
• Failing to disclose audio tapes of witness testimony,
• Failing to disclose a deathbed confession of evidence destruction by the prosecuting attorney Gerry Deegan,
• And Failing to disclose eyewitness identification of the killer that didn't match Thompson.
There are other allegations of systemic misconduct by Connick and his prosecutors. "According to the Innocence Project, a national organization that represents incarcerated criminals claiming innocence, 36 men convicted in Orleans Parish during Connick's 30-year tenure as DA have made allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and 19 have had their sentences overturned or reduced as a result."
For additional information on John Hollway's "KILLING TIME', please visit www.johnhollway.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
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
