|
|
|
Court approves Harry and David reorganization plan
Court Watch |
2011/08/30 09:25
|
Harry & David will emerge from bankruptcy protection in the middle of September, the specialty foods company said Tuesday, after its plan for reorganization was approved in court.
The emergence will likely occur on or around Sept. 13, giving the company plenty of time to ramp up for the crucial holiday season.
Kay Hong, the interim CEO who is heading the restructuring, said that Harry and David is returning as a stronger company that is better positioned for long-term profitable growth. The restructuring plan was approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
With consumer priorities reshuffled during the recession, the demand fruit basket and gourmet gifts evaporated. Harry & David entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March.
Hong said the company looks forward to the holiday season with strong lineup of new products and plans "to deliver a terrific gift experience and unparalleled customer service as Harry & David has done for generations."
Harry & David Holdings Inc., based in Medford, Ore., sells under the Harry & David, Wolferman's and Cushman's brands online and in stores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2011/08/30 09:24
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against SinoTech Energy Limited, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters.
The lawsuit, which is captioned Crayder v. SinoTech Energy Limited, et al., 11-CV-05935, alleges violations of the United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of SinoTech's American Depository Shares ("ADSs") from November 3, 2010 through August 16, 2011 (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of ADSs in the Company's November 3, 2010 initial public offering (the "November IPO"). Claims for November IPO purchasers arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Claims for other Class Period purchasers fall under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The lawsuit asserts numerous problems with SinoTech's previously issued financial statements and declarations about its future prospects. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that: (1) the Company's sole import agent, which accounted for more than $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company's only chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company's largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast majority of SinoTech's revenues, has unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (6) positive statements the Company made regarding its internal financial controls were false and misleading.
On August 16, 2011, a research analyst writing under the name Alfred Little published an investigative report (the "Report") detailing these and other problems at SinoTech. The day the Report was issued, the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40%, falling from $4.02 per share on August 15, 2011 to $2.35 per share at the close of trading on August 16, 2011 - a decline of $1.67 per share on unusually high trading volume. The NASDAQ halted SinoTech trading after the market closed on August 16, 2011, announcing that trading would remain halted until the Company "fully satisfied NASDAQ's request for additional information." To date, trading has not resumed.
If you purchased the common stock of SinoTech and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 18, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this action, or you may do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and West Palm Beach, and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation.
The firm’s reputation for excellence has repeatedly been recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total over a billion dollars. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For more information visit www.cohenmilstein.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to hear appeal over medicating Loughner
Court Watch |
2011/08/30 06:23
|
A federal appeals court will hear arguments Tuesday over a request to permanently ban prison officials from forcibly medicating the Tucson shooting rampage suspect with psychotropic drugs.
At issue in Jared Lee Loughner's appeal before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal is whether prison officials or a judge should decide whether a mentally ill person who poses a danger in prison should be forcibly medicated.
Prosecutors say the decision is for prison officials to make, while Loughner's lawyers say it's up to a judge.
Loughner has pleaded not guilty to 49 charges in the Jan. 8 shooting that killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
He has been at a federal prison facility in Springfield, Mo., since late May after mental health experts determined he suffers from schizophrenia and a judge ruled him mentally unfit to stand trial. He was sent to the facility in a bid to restore his mental competency so he can assist in his legal defense.
Loughner was forcibly medicated from June 21 to July 1 after prison doctors concluded that he was a danger. His attorneys appealed U.S. District Judge Larry Burns' ruling that said Loughner could be forcibly medicated in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder Class Action Filed Against WebMD Health Corp.
Class Action |
2011/08/30 02:24
|
The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WebMD Health Corp., who purchased or otherwise acquired WebMD securities between February 23, 2011 and July 15, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the Complaint or join this class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.
Members of the class may, not later than October 3, 2011, move the Court to serve 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported 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.
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 Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the class action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2011/08/29 09:26
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Ener1, Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the “Class”) consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Ener1 between January 10, 2011 and August 15, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Ener1 designs, develops and manufactures high-performance batteries and battery pack systems. In 2009 and 2010, Ener1 made separate investments in electric-vehicle manufacturer Think Global, AS and its majority owner Think Holdings, AS. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that, among other things: (1) Think Global lacked adequate operating capital, and the ability to raise capital, to continue operations; (2) as a result, Ener1 failed to timely impair the value of its Think Holdings investments; (3) as a result, the outstanding loans receivable and accounts receivable due from Think Holdings and Think Global were uncollectible; (4) as such, the Company’s financial statements were misstated and its financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); and (5), as a result, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 15, 2011, Ener1 disclosed that the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010 and for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 should no longer be relied upon and should be restated. The determination was made following an assessment of certain accounting matters related to the loans receivable owed to Ener1 by Think Holdings and accounts receivable owed to Ener1 by Think Global held by the Company, and the timing of the recognition of the impairment charge related to the Company’s investment in Think Holdings originally recorded during the quarter ended March 31, 2011. 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 Ener1 securities between January 10, 2011 and August 15, 2011, you have until October 17, 2011 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member. 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, by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming Supreme Court rules for bar owners
Court Watch |
2011/08/29 09:25
|
The Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled that state law protects bar owners from lawsuits arising from the actions of their intoxicated patrons.
In a split decision Friday, the court upheld a lower court ruling against relatives of a Ten Sleep couple who died in a head-on crash in 2008. The couple's relatives had sued the owners of two Big Horn County saloons claiming they continued to serve the driver who plowed into the couple after he was drunk.
The court majority ruled state law from the 1980s holds bar owners can't be held liable for their patrons' actions.
Chief Justice Marilyn S. Kite and Justice William Hill filed a dissenting opinion saying they would allow lawsuits against bar owners if they violated local ordinances against serving alcohol to intoxicated persons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No choking charges for Wis. Supreme Court justice
Breaking Legal News |
2011/08/26 10:07
|
A conservative Wisconsin state Supreme Court justice who staved off an unusually intense campaign to replace him this summer will not face criminal charges over allegations that he tried to choke a liberal colleague, a prosecutor said Thursday.
Sauk County District Attorney Patricia Barrett, a special prosecutor in the case, said that after reviewing investigators' reports, she decided there's no basis to file charges against either Justice David Prosser or Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who accused Prosser of choking her.
Barrett, who is a Republican, told The Associated Press that the accounts of the other justices who were present when the alleged altercation occurred varied widely, however she declined to elaborate.
"I believe a complete review of the report suggests there is a difference of opinion. There are a variety of statements about what occurred ... the totality of what did happen does not support criminal charges against either Justice Bradley or Justice Prosser," Barrett said.
Walsh Bradley accused Prosser of choking her in June while the justices were deliberating the merits of a lawsuit challenging Republican Gov. Scott Walker's contentious law stripping public workers of most of their collective bargaining rights. Walsh Bradley, 61, is seen as part of the court's three-justice liberal minority, while Prosser, a 68-year-old former Republican legislator, is considered part of the four-justice conservative majority. The factions have been feuding for years.
The court delivered its verdict the day after the alleged incident, ruling 4-3 to uphold the law and allowing it to finally take effect. As expected, Prosser voted with the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
