|
|
|
Scott+Scott LLP Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/10/20 10:33
|
On October 19, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint against K-V Pharmaceutical Company and certain of the Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing the common stock of K-V between February 14, 2011 and April 4, 2011, inclusive.
If you purchased the common stock of K-V during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. Any member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott
scottlaw@scott-scott.com
http://www.scott-scott.com/cases/new/securities-fraud-litigation-1533-k-v-pharmaceutical-company-kv-a.html
The complaint filed in the action charges that during the brief Class Period, the Company issued false and misleading statements claiming the Food and Drug Administration had granted K-V the exclusive distribution rights over its "Makena," a drug compound that had previously been prescribed by physicians for decades to prevent miscarriages, and that the agency would enforce those rights by preventing K-V's competitors from distributing generic compounds of Makena. The complaint also alleges that defendants told investors K-V's Makena distribution program was designed to "expand access" to the drug compound, including to low-income and other at-risk groups, while concealing that the $1,500 list price K-V was charging would actually reduce availability of the drug compound to physicians and their patients. As a result, based on a fundamental misperception of K-V's sales and earnings potential, the complaint charges that K-V's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, allowing K-V to sell $200 million worth of senior secured notes, with the proceeds used in large part to pay down the Company's debts.
The complaint alleges that the truth began to come to light on March 17, 2011, when two U.S. Senators publicly questioned the bona fides of K-V's distribution program, stating "the financial assistance is not sufficient and does not extend to certain groups of women," and so that in reality, "KV Pharmaceutical's actions will result in diminished access to appropriate health care for women and result in increased preterm births." It is alleged that this partial disclosure caused K-V's stock price to fall precipitously, removing some of the stock inflation. Then, following the FDA's own March 30, 2011 statement that the agency did "not intend to take enforcement action against" K-V's competitors for distributing the generic version of K-V's Makena, K-V's stock fell further on extremely high trading volume. Finally, following K-V's April 1, 2011 disclosure that K-V was reducing Makena's list price by nearly 55% to $690 per injection -- versus the previous list price of $1,500 -- the market learned on April 4, 2011 that many physicians would never prescribe Makena to their patients due to flaws in the distribution program. On this news, K-V's stock price fell an additional 9.5% in a single trading session.
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2011/10/17 09:56
|
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is investigating potential securities law violations as alleged in a securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Imperial Holdings, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering on or about February 7, 2011 through September 27, 2011, inclusive.
Imperial Holdings shareholders, or individuals with information relating to this investigation, who wish to learn more about the action should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.
Background on the Imperial Holdings Securities Class Litigation
The action is brought against Imperial Holdings, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the IPO for violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Imperial Holdings is a specialty finance company that focuses on providing premium financing for individual life insurance policies.
The action alleges that the Company’s registration statement and prospectus for the IPO, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that Imperial Holdings had engaged in wrongdoing with respect to its life insurance finance business that would expose the Company and certain of its employees to government investigations.
On September 27, 2011, Imperial Holdings announced that federal investigators had served the Company with a search warrant and that it and certain of its employees, including its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its President and Chief Operating Officer, were under investigation in connection with the Company’s life insurance business. In response to this announcement and news of the raid on the Company's headquarters, the price of Imperial Holdings stock declined from $6.30 per share to close at $2.19 per share on September 28, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last nine consecutive years. For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm’s representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Law Office of Robbins Umeda LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2011/10/11 09:41
|
Robbins Umeda LLP announces that the firm commenced a class action lawsuit on October 7, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Stereotaxis, Inc. between February 28, 2011 and August 9, 2011 against certain of the Company's officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Umeda LLP and Carey, Danis & Lowe.
Stereotaxis designs, manufactures, and markets a cardiology instrument control system, called Niobe®, for use in a hospital's interventional surgical suite to enhance the treatment of coronary artery disease and arrhythmias. The Company also markets the Odyssey system as a data management solution for remote viewing and recording of live interventional procedures. The Company's executive offices are located in St. Louis, Missouri.
The complaint alleges that beginning on February 28, 2011, Chief Executive Officer Michael Kaminski, along with certain officers and directors at Stereotaxis, issued a series of positive statements to investors about the business condition and future prospects of the Company that were materially false and misleading, and that caused shares of the Company's stock to trade at artificially high prices.
In particular, the complaint alleges that officials at the Company failed to disclose to investors material adverse facts that: (1) Stereotaxis was unable to leverage its extensive portfolio and scale of products and services in a strategically beneficial manner; (2) market feedback from users of the Company's technology was "mixed"; (3) the Niobe system was far from the "standard of care" and needed "fundamental product improvements"; (4) demand for the Niobe and Odyssey systems was weak, and that the number of units being sold was decreasing; (5) the reported backlog of orders did not fairly represent future revenue the Company expected to recognize; and that (6) the Company overstated its market edge.
On August 8, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the second quarter of 2011 that revealed that the Company was performing well below expectations. Additionally, the press release disclosed to investors that the Company was forced to suspend its full year guidance for 2011, and that Daniel Johnston was resigning as the Chief Financial Officer. On this news shares of Stereotaxis declined by more than 58% of their value, closing on August 9, 2011 at just $1.19 per share.
If you purchased Stereotaxis stock during the Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from October 10, 2011. To discuss your shareholder rights, please contact attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo at 800-350-6003 or via the shareholder information form.
Robbins Umeda LLP represents individual and institutional shareholders in derivative, direct, and class action lawsuits. The law firm's skilled litigation teams include former federal prosecutors, former defense counsel from top multinational corporate law firms, and career shareholder rights attorneys. Robbins Umeda LLP has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. For more information, please go to http://www.robbinsumeda.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Cole & Associates Announces Update for Class Action
Class Action |
2011/10/06 09:32
|
According to Scott Cole, within days of being hit with a class action lawsuit for failing to offer meal and rest breaks to its California workforce, Guitar Center fired the man who pioneered the lawsuit and allowed its workers to parade the named plaintiff’s final paycheck around the workplace. In immediate reaction to these events, the plaintiff’s attorneys at Scott Cole & Associates amended the Complaint today to allege a wrongful termination and invasion of privacy claim.
“If Guitar Center thinks it can send a message to its workers that standing up for their rights will cost them, this new wrongful termination claim sends a stronger message right back,” says Scott Cole, the principal lawyer on the case. “Firing our client was a big mistake.”
The lawsuit is entitled Pellanda v. Guitar Center, Inc.
Oakland-based Scott Cole & Associates, APC is one of California’s premiere class action law firms and is devoted to representing individuals in employment and consumer rights litigation. For more information about our practice and cases, visit www.scalaw.com or call (510) 891-9800.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynex Capital, Inc. Reaches Agreement-in-Principle to Settle Class Action
Class Action |
2011/10/04 11:22
|
Dynex Capital, Inc. announced today that it has entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted against all defendants of the class action lawsuit captioned In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 Civ. 1897 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.) now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”). The lawsuit was filed by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund in February 2005 and alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a class of purchasers of MERIT Series 12-1 and MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds between February 2000 and May 2004. The memorandum of understanding sets forth terms of a proposed settlement whereby the Company would pay $7.5 million into an escrow account following the negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement and preliminary approval by the Court. The disbursement of the escrowed payment will be subject to notice to the class and final approval by the Court, in addition to any other conditions contained in the definitive settlement agreement. The Company continues to deny that it violated any federal securities laws and has agreed in principle to this settlement solely to eliminate the expense, burden and uncertainty of the litigation. The Company had not provided reserves for this litigation and accordingly the proposed settlement amount will be included as an expense in the Company’s financial statements for the third quarter of 2011. The proposed settlement amount will reduce earnings per share for the third quarter of 2011 by approximately $0.186 per common share. The proposed settlement does not impact the Company’s previously declared dividend for the third quarter of $0.27 per common share. “This settlement will resolve legacy litigation so that we may continue to focus on the long-term future of our business,” said Thomas B. Akin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “It will settle a significant uncertainty and does not materially impact the core operating or future earnings potential of the Company.” Separately the Company announced that it expects to exercise its option to refinance in October 2011 approximately $74.2 million in collateralized financings with repurchase agreement financing in order to take advantage of the lower interest rate environment and reduce its overall borrowing costs. Approximately $23.7 million in the collateralized financings is a securitization financing bond issued by the Company in 1998 and which finances commercial mortgage loans included in the Company’s financial statements. The bond had recently been upgraded to ‘AA’ from ‘A+’ reflecting the high quality of the associated loan collateral. Overall the refinancing is expected to save the Company approximately $2.0 million annually in interest costs based on current anticipated market conditions and repurchase agreement financing terms (which are subject to change) and approximately $600,000 annually in amortization expense. The Company will take a one time non-cash charge of $2.0 million on the redemption of the securitization financing bond related to remaining unamortized discount recorded on the bond as of September 30, 2011. Consummation of the refinance is dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, interest rates, the Company obtaining repurchase agreement financing on terms and conditions acceptable to the Company and the condition of repurchase financing markets generally. Dynex Capital, Inc. is an internally managed real estate investment trust, or REIT, which invests in mortgage assets on a leveraged basis. The Company invests in Agency and non-Agency RMBS and CMBS. The Company also has investments in securitized single-family residential and commercial mortgage loans originated by the Company from 1992 to 1998. Additional information about Dynex Capital, Inc. is available at www.dynexcapital.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-workers at Fla. foreclose firm get class action
Class Action |
2011/09/28 10:34
|
Hundreds of former employees at a shuttered South Florida foreclosure law firm have been permitted by a judge to pursue a class action lawsuit involving labor law violations.
A Miami federal judge this week approved class action status for the case against attorney David J. Stern. Stern's firm was one of the biggest handling foreclosures in Florida, but it collapsed amid investigations into so-called "robo-signing" of documents and other alleged irregularities.
Hundreds of Stern's employees were laid off. The lawsuit contends the firm did not follow federal labor laws when it began mass firings.
The case involves at least 700 of Stern's former workers. They are seeking back pay, benefit reimbursements and other damages.
Stern's lawyers say the layoffs were done properly because of unforeseen circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rentech Announces Final Court Approvals of Settlements
Class Action |
2011/09/28 10:33
|
Rentech, Inc. announced today that it has received final court approvals for the settlements of the securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits against the Company and a number of its current and former directors and officers. The lawsuits related to the Company’s restatement in December 2009 of certain of its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009. The Company believed that it was in the best interests of its stockholders to settle the matters at a reasonable cost to avoid potentially protracted and expensive litigation. The Company and the individual defendants have denied any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations contained in these lawsuits.
The settlement for the consolidated class action lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW) provides for a settlement fund of $1.8 million, from which plaintiffs' counsel will receive an award of attorneys fees and expenses. The settlements for the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:10-cv-0485-GHK-PJW) and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Andrew L. Tarr v. Dennis L. Yakobson, et al., LASC Master File No. BC430553) provide that the Company adopt certain governance practices, and pay (or cause its insurance carrier to pay) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses of $300,000. Over 90% of the aggregate securities class action and shareholder derivative settlement payments are covered by Rentech’s insurance carriers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
