|
|
|
Shareholder class action hits Leighton
Breaking Legal News |
2011/09/01 09:40
|
Shareholders set to take legal action against Leighton over alleged failures to properly report a $907 million turnaround in financial performance.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn on Thursday said it intended to launch a class action against the company, alleging Leighton breached continuous disclosure obligations as set out in the Corporations Act.
On April 11 this year, the Leighton announced it was expecting to post a loss of $427 million for the 2010/11 financial year, a turnaround from a $480 million profit in 2009/10.
The announcement came after a review of its operations, which led to a $282 million drop in profit from its desalination plant project at Wonthaggi in Victoria, a before-tax loss of $430 million on the Brisbane Airport Link and a $295 million write-down on its equity in the Middle East-focused Habtoor Leighton Group.
Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson said Leighton should have told the market about those write-downs by November 2, 2010, or, at the very latest, February 14 this year.
'Shareholders expect a company like Leighton to have proper risk management and internal reporting systems to ensure timely announcements are made when there are difficulties,' Mr Watson said.
Maurice Blackburn says it believes Leighton was seeking approval for design changes on the Brisbane Airport Link because of expected delays as early as April 2009.
Leighton also advised the market that construction of the Victorian desalination plant was on time at least five times between November 2010 and March 2011, Maurice Blackburn alleges.
In response to a query from the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) several days after its announcement of the losses, Leighton said it informed the market of its expected losses as soon as it was aware of them.
'At all times, the company has been mindful of its continuous disclosure obligations,' Leighton secretary Ashley Moir said on April 18.
Last week, the Leightonboard terminated the contract of chief executive David Stewart, who took over from long-time chief executive Wal King in January.
That followed chairman David Mortimer's decision to depart the Leighton board a day earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$6.5 billion Sino-Forest class action suit launched
Class Action |
2011/09/01 09:40
|
Lawyers representing plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit against Sino-Forest Corp. (TSX:TRE) have filed a statement of claim against the Chinese timber operator, seeking more than $7.37 billion in damages.
Law firms Koskie Minsky LLP and Siskinds LLP filed the claim in Ontario superior court, alleging that executives conspired to inflate share prices, and accusing the troubled forestry company of making misrepresentations about its operations.
The Ontario Securities Commission halted trading of shares in the forestry company on the Toronto Stock Exchange last week, after accusing it of fraud.
The law suit seeks money for those who bought Sino-Forest shares on the stock market and through the company's public offering.
"The securities sold by Sino via the offerings were sold at artificially inflated prices as a result of the representation and the other misrepresentations," the statement of claim said.
The allegations against Sino-Forest have not been proven in court. The company did not return a call requesting comment Wednesday.
The claim names several Sino-Forest executives, including former CEO Allen Chan; auditor Ernst & Young; and financial institutions that had acted as underwriters for the company's 2009 prospectus offering. They include TD Securities, Dundee Securities, RBC Securities, Scotia Capital, and CIBC World Markets.
"The underwriters earned fees from the class, whether directly or indirectly, for work that they never performed or that they performed with gross negligence, in connection with the offerings, or some of them," according to the statement of claim.
"Sino, E&Y and the individual defendants further breached their duty of care as they failed to maintain appropriate internal controls to ensure that Sino’s disclosure documents adequately and fairly presented the business and affairs of Sino on a timely basis," it said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SD Supreme Court upholds school funding system
Breaking Legal News |
2011/09/01 09:39
|
The South Dakota Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of the state's system for funding school districts, rejecting the schools' arguments that the current arrangement does not provide enough money to assure students of an adequate education.
In a unanimous ruling, the high court said a lawsuit supported by about two-thirds of the state's school districts raises serious questions about the funding system and shows that some districts struggle to provide adequate facilities and qualified teachers.
"Even so, reasonable doubt exists that the statutory funding mechanisms or level of funding are unconstitutional," Justice Judith Meierhenry wrote for the court.
The 41-page main decision upholds a ruling by Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur of Pierre, who ruled in 2009 that the school funding system is constitutional because it provides students with an adequate education that prepares them for life after high school. Wilbur has since been appointed to the Supreme Court, but did not take part in Thursday's ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group seeks appellate action on gays in military
Court Watch |
2011/09/01 01:40
|
The military's ban on openly gay troops will be lifted within weeks, but the policy can still be re-enacted in the future.
That's why a Republican gay rights organization that sued the Obama administration to stop enforcement of the policy says it will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to declare the nearly 18-year-old law unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's ruling last year.
With several Republican presidential candidates, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, indicating they would favor reinstating the ban if elected, such a ruling is needed, said Dan Woods, the attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans. Declaring the law unconstitutional would also provide a legal path for thousands discharged under the policy to seek reinstatement, back pay or other compensation for having their careers cut short, Woods said.
"The repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't say anything about the future," Woods said. "It doesn't (explicitly) say homosexuals can serve. A new Congress or new president could come back and reinstitute it. We need our case to survive so there is a constraint on the government to prevent it from doing this again."
During her campaign stop in Iowa in August, Bachmann told interviewer Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of The Union" when asked whether she would reinstitute the law: "It worked very well and I would be in consultation with our commanders, but I think, yes, I probably would."
Justice Department attorneys have filed a motion asking the appeals court to dismiss the case, arguing that the repeal process that will lift the ban Sept. 20 makes the lawsuit irrelevant.
The Log Cabin Republicans successfully won an injunction by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips last year that halted enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" briefly, before the 9th Circuit reinstated it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals Court upholds sanctions against doctor
Breaking Legal News |
2011/09/01 01:39
|
An appeals court has upheld sanctions against a former University of Wisconsin Hospital doctor who was accused of fondling female patients.
The 4th District Court of Appeals said in its decision Thursday that the state Medical Examining Board properly sanctioned Dr. Frank Salvi in 2009. He was suspended for 90 days and required to undergo a mental evaluation and five years of supervision.
Salvi denied charges made by four female patients that accused him of fondling them in 2004 and 2005.
A Dane County judge ruled last year that the state medical board improperly sanctioned Salvi, but the board appealed. The Appeals Court reversed that decision, saying the board properly disciplined Salvi.
Salvi's attorney Lester Pines had not seen the decision and had no immediate comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colombia court reinstates conviction in Galan hit
Court Watch |
2011/08/31 09:40
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated the murder conviction of a former justice minister for masterminding the 1989 assassination of presidential candidate Luis Carlos Galan, a courageous foe of drug cartels.
The court also reinstated the 24-year prison sentence a lower court imposed in 2007 on Alberto Santofimio, who was widely considered the "political godfather" of the late cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar.
Hitmen employed by Escobar killed Galan, and a key witness in Santofimio's trial said he saw the defendant urge Escobar to order the murder.
"Kill him, Pablo," testified John Jairo Velasquez, or "Popeye," who was Escobar's chief henchman at the time and has confessed to organizing the assassination.
Santofimio, a senator who had been justice minister in the 1970s, was at the time a rival of Galan for the Liberal Party's presidential nomination.
The Aug. 18, 1989, assassination badly traumatized a nation already reeling from a terror campaign by Escobar's henchmen, who killed hundreds of judges, journalists and police. Escobar also targeted civilians with car bombs, even blowing up an airplane in midflight.
The drug kingpin was trying to pressure Colombia's leaders not to extradite drug lords to the United States. Nonetheless, Galan, the presidential frontrunner when he was killed, promised to battle the narcos with extradition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2011/08/30 09:26
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of the purchasers of Juniper Networks, Inc. who purchased shares between July 20, 2010 and July 26, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/jnpr. Juniper designs, develops, and sells products and services that provide network infrastructure used for the deployment of services and applications over a single Internet Protocol based network worldwide. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Juniper issued materially false and misleading information concerning the Company's business practices and financial results. Defendants repeatedly assured investors that Juniper was well positioned to deliver against its long-term model of 20% or higher revenue growth and 25% or higher operating margin, while failing to disclose negative trends in Juniper’s business. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Juniper’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Then on July 26, 2011, Juniper issued a press release reporting disappointing financial results which were far below previous guidance. On this news, shares of Juniper dropped 21% to close at $24.66 per share. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 15, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. 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 class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member 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 Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information about the case or to participate online, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/jnpr or contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
