|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/10 09:27
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. between February 1, 2011 and October 18, 2011, inclusive.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/powerwave/. Any member of the putative 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.
The complaint charges Powerwave and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Powerwave engages in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of wireless solutions for wireless communications networks worldwide.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing a dramatic decline in demand from customers in its North American markets; (ii) that the Company was rapidly burning through its free cash flow as revenues declined and expenses increased; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its operations and earnings.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court asked to undo Mont. campaign money ban
Court Watch |
2012/02/10 04:27
|
Corporations are asking the Supreme Court to allow them to spend freely to influence upcoming elections in Montana, despite a state high court ruling upholding a ban on independent corporate campaign spending.
Three groups filed papers with Justice Anthony Kennedy on Friday, saying that the Montana court's decision in December is out of step with Kennedy's majority opinion in the 2010 Citizens United case that struck down a federal ban on independent campaign spending.
The American Tradition Partnership and two other groups sued soon after the 2010 decision to overturn Montana's century-old corporate spending ban. But the state Supreme Court said the Montana law could remain in place because it was a response to political corruption and allows for some corporate spending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/09 10:01
|
Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the American Depositary Shares of China Medical Technologies, Inc. between November 26, 2007 and December 12, 2011, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.
China Medical develops, manufactures and markets immunodiagnostic and molecular diagnostic products. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including: (1) that the Company’s acquisition of Beijing Bio-Ekon Biotechnology Co. Ltd. (“BBE”) was from a third-party seller connected to China Medical’s CEO; (2) that the Company substantially overpaid to acquire BBE; (3) that China Medical’s acquisition of BBE involved the use of fraudulent shell companies; (4) that the Company was suffering substantial operating losses prior to the acquisition; (5) that a majority of the Company’s accounts receivable were in excess of 120 days; (6) that, as a result, China Medical’s financial results were overstated; (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8), as a result of the foregoing, that the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
http://www.glancylaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group wants Supreme Court to save war memorial
Court Watch |
2012/02/09 10:01
|
Supporters of a war memorial cross deemed unconstitutional last year by a federal court plan to ask the Supreme Court to reverse the decision, amid a growing fight nationwide over the use of religious symbols to honor fallen troops.
A nonprofit legal firm, Liberty Institute in Dallas, planned to file its petition Thursday to preserve the 43-foot monument on federal land atop San Diego's Mt. Soledad — the same day the group called on combat veterans and supporters to rally at the picturesque site overlooking the Pacific Ocean in the suburb of La Jolla.
The Supreme Court has signaled a greater willingness to allow religious symbols on public land, and the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last month that writes into law the propriety of displaying such markers at war memorials.
Last year's ruling by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals capped two decades of legal challenges over the 1954 cross that became a memorial to Korean War veterans.
A number of other military memorials on public lands across the country have been challenged in recent years by civil liberty activists and atheists who say they violate the separation between church and state. The Supreme Court in 2010 refused to order the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home atop a remote rocky outcropping in California's Mojave Desert. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP Secures $10 Million Settlement
Law Center |
2012/02/08 09:40
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP announced a nationwide class action settlement valued at $10 million with All Market, Inc., the leading manufacturer and seller of coconut water in the United States.
Coconut water is one of the fastest growing beverages sold in the United States. Vita Coco markets its coconut water as “super-hydrating,” “nutrient-packed,” “mega-electrolyte,” and healthy “super-water.” Labaton Sucharow filed a proposed nationwide class action, styled Fishbein et al., v. All Market Inc., No. 11-cv-05580, against the company after an independent study revealed that Vita Coco’s products do not contain the electrolyte levels indicated on the products’ labels. The class action complaint alleges that Vita Coco’s coconut water products are mislabeled and do not hydrate more effectively than less expensive sports drinks.
Kellie Lerner, one of the attorneys in the action, stated: “For the millions of consumers who pay for products that claim to improve their health, this settlement sends a message that companies will be held accountable when they exaggerate or misstate the health benefits of their products.”
Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York City and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country’s premier law firms representing institutional investors in class actions and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive or deceptive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for close to 50 years, seeking recovery of losses and the adoption of necessary corporate governance reforms to protect investors, businesses and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BofA investor lawsuit wins class-action status
Breaking Legal News |
2012/02/08 09:40
|
Investors suing Bank of America Corp won class-action status for their lawsuit accusing the bank of fraudulently misleading them about the 2008 takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co and the size of Merrill's losses and bonus payouts.
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel in Manhattan on Monday rejected the second-largest U.S. bank's argument that the investors could not prove they suffered losses by relying on materially misleading statements or omissions.
Among the other defendants who were also sued and opposed class certification were former Bank of America Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis, former Merrill Chief Executive John Thain, former Bank of America Chief Financial Officer Joe Price, and Bank of America's board of directors.
Lewis had won initial praise for saving Merrill from possible collapse when he agreed to buy it on September 15, 2008, the day Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc went bankrupt.
But investors later faulted the bank for not disclosing the scope of Merrill's soaring losses, which reached $15.84 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, before December 2008 shareholder votes on the merger. They also objected to Merrill's having paid $3.6 billion of bonuses despite the losses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Lawsuits Now Target Law Schools
Law Center |
2012/02/07 09:55
|
A threatened wave of class actions against American law schools became a reality last week after plaintiffs' lawyers sued a dozen more schools over their allegedly misleading use of salary and employment data. But this trend in "consumer protection" is potentially damaging, not only to U.S. law schools, but to higher education in general, said two attorneys for the national law firm LeClairRyan.
"If the goal of these suits is securing transparency on jobs data, then the plaintiffs and their counsel are going about this in entirely the wrong way," said veteran class action defense attorney Michael Haratz, a Newark-based partner in LeClairRyan's Business Litigation team. "While there is nothing wrong with working toward clear, consistent and coherent reporting standards, such matters are best addressed via the regulatory process—not by bending higher education to fit a consumerist paradigm more appropriate to a purchaser of traditional consumer goods."
The trend shows every sign of expanding to other institutions across the country, added Haratz. "According to a prominent legal journalist, for example, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers—someone who previously declared 2012 'the year of law school litigation'—hopes to sue up to 25 new schools every few months," he said.
The new complaints come in the wake of highly publicized class actions filed last year against Thomas M. Cooley Law School, New York Law School and Thomas Jefferson School of Law. The latest schools to be targeted reportedly are: Albany Law School, Brooklyn Law School, Hofstra Law School, Widener Law, Florida Coastal School of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, DePaul University College of Law, John Marshall Law School, California Western School of Law, Southwestern Law School, University of San Francisco School of Law, and Golden Gate University School of Law.
The complaints allege that U.S. law schools artificially boost enrollments by exaggerating or misrepresenting graduates' employment and salary statistics. "The problem with such litigation is that it runs contrary to the purpose and spirit underlying the class-action lawsuit as a vehicle for consumer redress," said Robert B. Smith a Boston-based LeClair Ryan partner and leader of the firm's Education Industry team. "Why? Because the consumerist paradigm does not fit higher education. Just as law degrees should not come with guarantees of 'gainful employment or your money back,' law students should not regard themselves as consumers entitled to same. After all, they are individuals with varying degrees of talent, motivation, discipline and intelligence. Their futures are their own responsibilities."
About LeClairRyan
As a trusted advisor, LeClairRyan provides business counsel and client representation in corporate law and litigation. In this role, the firm applies its knowledge, insight and skill to help clients achieve their business objectives while managing and minimizing their legal risks, difficulties and expenses. With offices in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C., the firm has approximately 350 attorneys representing a wide variety of clients throughout the nation. For more information about LeClairRyan, visit www.leclairryan.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
