|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action |
2011/09/26 09:41
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
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 plaintiffs’ counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. 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/allostherapeutics. 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 Allos and its Board of Directors (the “Board”) with breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty under state law and the Board and AMAG with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Allos is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the development and commercialization of anti-cancer therapeutics.
The action arises from Allos and AMAG’s July 20, 2011 announcement that Allos had entered into a definitive merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) under which Allos would be acquired by AMAG in a transaction valued at approximately $260 million (the “Proposed Acquisition”). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Allos stockholders will receive a fixed ratio of 0.1282 shares of AMAG common stock for each share of Allos common stock held. The deal values Allos stock at $2.44 a share using AMAG’s prior closing price of $19.07. The complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition significantly undervalues Allos, as Allos shares traded as high as $4.21 as recently as January 12, 2011, and after the announcement of the Proposed Acquisition the price of AMAG common stock has fallen to $13.58 per share, giving the deal a real value of just $1.74 per Allos share.
The complaint further alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Acquisition, on August 22, 2011, defendants issued a materially false and misleading Preliminary Joint Proxy/Prospectus on Form S-4 (the “Proxy”). The Proxy, which recommends that Allos shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material information about the unfair sales process for the Company, conflicts of interest that corrupted the sales process, the unfair consideration offered in the Proposed Acquisition, and the actual intrinsic value of the Company on a stand-alone basis and as a merger partner for AMAG, in contravention of §§14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and/or defendants’ fiduciary duty of disclosure under state law.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all shareholders of Allos who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG (the “Class”). The plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
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. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idaho inmates settle lawsuit over prison violence
Class Action |
2011/09/22 11:36
|
A potential class-action lawsuit against the nation's largest private prison company over allegations of violence at the Idaho Correctional Center has been settled in federal court.
The agreement between the inmates and Nashville, Tenn.-based Corrections Corporation of America was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Boise.
In it, CCA doesn't acknowledge the allegations but agrees to increase staffing, investigate all assaults and make other sweeping changes at the lockup south of Boise. If the company fails to make the changes, the inmates can ask the courts to force CCA to comply.
The inmates, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued last year on behalf of everyone incarcerated at the CCA-run state prison. They said the prison was so violent it was dubbed "Gladiator School," and that guards used inmate-on-inmate violence as a management tool and then denied prisoners medical care as a way to cover up the assaults.
CCA has denied all the allegations as part of the settlement, but the agreement is governed under a section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act which only applies in cases in which prisoners' constitutional rights have been violated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kona coffee dispute prompts class-action lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/09/20 23:37
|
A spat involving Safeway and Hawaii coffee growers is still brewing, even after the supermarket giant agreed to change labeling on its Kona blend coffee.
A $5 million class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Northern California claiming Safeway profited off the reputation of Kona coffee while selling an inferior product with very little Hawaii-grown coffee.
The lawsuit was filed Aug. 30, a day before Safeway's letter informing the Kona Coffee Farmers Association the company would change its packaging to reflect the percentage of Kona it contains. The farmers had called for a boycott of Safeway's 1,700 stores nationwide after a farmer saw the Kona blend for sale in a California store.
In an effort to protect a world-famous Hawaii product, the state's Board of Agriculture Chairman Russell Kokubun sent a letter to Safeway officials asking them to comply with a law here requiring labels to specify the percentage of Hawaii-grown coffee included in the blend. The law requires those blends have at least 10 percent Hawaii-grown coffee. But because Safeway's Kona blend isn't sold in any of the 19 Hawaii locations, Kokubun could only ask for voluntary compliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa hiring lawsuit begins Monday
Class Action |
2011/09/16 23:38
|
Trial in a class-action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against blacks is set to begin in a Polk County District courtroom.
Earlier this month, a judge rejected the state's request to throw out the lawsuit against the state.
Judge Robert Blink disagreed with the state's argument that the case was too broad be legally viable. He said the state agreed years ago to certify the case for class action.
The trial is expected to last three weeks.
The lawsuit was filed in 2007 by 14 people who claim they were denied state positions because they are black. It's grown to cover an estimated 6,000 blacks who sought employment or promotions with the state since 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maine agrees to help disabled live independently
Class Action |
2011/09/07 08:58
|
The state of Maine has agreed to a plan that will help some of the state's disabled residents receive services that will let them live outside nursing homes.
In a settlement to a class-action lawsuit, the Department of Health and Human Services agreed to provide disabled people with normal mental function, the same level of services available to Mainers with mental retardation or other developmental disabilities.
The lawsuit was originally brought by three men with physical disabilities but normal mental function. The case eventually involved more than 40 people. The lawsuit alleged that MaineCare violated federal law by refusing to pay for support services that would allow the plaintiffs to live in a community setting instead of in nursing homes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AVX Myrtle Beach suit now class action
Class Action |
2011/09/03 08:56
|
As many as 229 property owners in Myrtle Beach could become plaintiffs in a lawsuit against electronics manufacturer AVX Corp. that alleges the company contaminated groundwater.
The Sun News of Myrtle beach reported a state judge this week certified the suit as a class action.
The four-year-old lawsuit suit says the company polluted groundwater with an industrial degreaser linked to cancer and other health problems. The lawsuit contends the pollution ruined property values in a 12-block area near the old AVX plant. The suit is not expected to be heard until next year.
AVX settled a separate lawsuit with an adjacent property owner earlier this year while a third contamination lawsuit is pending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
