|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action News |
2012/02/22 12:39
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities during the period between February 8, 2010 and December 15, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from February 6, 2012. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s 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/biosante/. 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 BioSante and its Chief Executive Officer with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BioSante is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing products for female sexual health and oncology.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the commercial viability, effectiveness, and market potential for LibiGel, a drug designed to improve the sex drive of women suffering from female sexual dysfunction, and specifically hypoactive sexual desire disorder (“HSDD”). Defendants boasted about LibiGel’s efficacy over placebo in clinical trials, and provided supposedly concrete “data” regarding the drug’s “statistically significant” effect on increasing the “number of satisfying sexual events” for women suffering from HSDD. As a result of these false statements, BioSante’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $3.81 on July 12, 2011.
On December 14, 2011, BioSante issued a press release disclosing for the first time to investors that LibiGel failed to yield positive results in large-scale efficacy tests designed by the Company. According to the clinical trial results, women treated with LibiGel did not experience a statistically significant increase in either total satisfying sexual encounters or sexual desire. In fact, in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, LibiGel did not fare significantly better than the placebo. On this news, BioSante’s stock collapsed $1.64 per share to close at $0.48 per share on December 15, 2011, a one-day decline of 77% on volume of nearly 50 million shares.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) LibiGel’s efficacy was well short of that required to obtain FDA approval; and (b) LibiGel failed to yield statistically superior results to placebo.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of BioSante securities during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is 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.
www.rgrdlaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm Brower Piven Announces Investigation
Law Firm News |
2012/02/21 17:57
|
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty to current shareholders of CH Energy Group, Inc. and other violations of state law by the board of directors of CH Energy Group relating to the proposed acquisition of the company by Fortis Inc. The firm's investigation seeks to determine, among other things, whether the board breached its fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value.
On February 21, 2012, Fortis announced that it had entered into an agreement providing for Fortis to acquire CH Energy Group for $1.5 billion. Under the terms of the merger agreement, CH Energy Group shareholders will receive $65.00 for each share of CH Energy Group common stock held. However, according to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a high price target of $69.00 per share.
If you currently own shares of CH Energy Group and would like to learn more about the investigation being conducted by Brower Piven, you may email or call Brower Piven, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions.
www.browerpiven.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to take new look at affirmative action
Lawyer Blog News |
2012/02/21 17:54
|
The Supreme Court will once again confront the issue of race in university admissions in a case brought by a white student denied a spot at the flagship campus of the University of Texas.
The court said Tuesday it will return to the issue of affirmative action in higher education for the first time since its 2003 decision endorsing the use of race as a factor in admissions. This time around, a more conservative court is being asked to outlaw the use of Texas' affirmative action plan and possibly to jettison the earlier ruling entirely.
A broad ruling in favor of the student, Abigail Fisher, could threaten affirmative action programs at many of the nation's public and private universities, said Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick.
A federal appeals court upheld the Texas program at issue, saying it was allowed under the high court's decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger in 2003 that upheld racial considerations in university admissions at the University of Michigan law school.
The Texas case will be argued in the fall, probably in the final days of the presidential election campaign, and the changed makeup of the Supreme Court could foretell a different outcome. For one thing, Justice Samuel Alito appears more hostile to affirmative action than his predecessor, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. For another, Justice Elena Kagan, who might be expected to vote with the court's liberal-leaning justices in support of it, is not taking part in the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Rights don't have to be read to prisoners
Court Feed News |
2012/02/21 15:54
|
The Supreme Court said Tuesday investigators don't have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out prison inmate Randall Lee Fields' conviction, saying Fields was not in "custody" as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him.
"Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's majority opinion.
Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court's decision would limit the rights of prisoners.
"Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: 'You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,'" Ginsburg said in her dissent. "Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights."
Miranda rights come from a 1966 decision that involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
Previous court rulings have required Miranda warnings before police interrogations for people who are in custody, which is defined as when a reasonable person would think he cannot end the questioning and leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indianapolis Construction Law Firm - Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP
Law Firm News |
2012/02/20 17:26
|
As part of our experience representing owners, contractors and design professionals throughout the industry, we have written and negotiated contracts based on industry standard forms (such as the AIA forms) and have also developed custom contract documents for specific clients and projects. Based upon our experience drafting and negotiating contract documents, as well as our advice and representation of clients in construction disputes, we know what works in a contract and what does not.
* We know contracts: We routinely draft and negotiate design and construction contracts for large, complex projects.
* We know construction: We know the industry, the terminology, the technology and procedures, the economics and accounting, as well as the law and the potential pitfalls for disputes.
* We know contractors: Having represented contractors of all sizes and specialties for decades, we know how they work; we know how they plan, estimate and schedule jobs; we know their management, accounting and claims procedures; and we know what is important to them and what is not in contract negotiations and in the resolution of claims and disputes.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law has expertise in all areas of construction law and their construction attorneys are dedicated to finding the best solution their construction industry clients. With much experience working with small, family-owned contractors, to some of the biggest general contractors in the Indianapolis area, Riley Bennett & Egloff Law knows what works. Visit www.rbelaw.com to see more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Announces a Proposed Class Action Settlement
Class Action News |
2012/02/20 17:25
|
To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation from May 5, 2008 to October 28, 2008, inclusive, including all those who purchased the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation pursuant and/or traceable to any registration statement, prospectus, prospectus supplement or any documents therein incorporated by reference filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's May 14, 2008 Secondary Offering, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the Court, that the above-captioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes of settlement only and that a settlement for One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) has been proposed. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sam B. Hall, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 100 East Houston Street, Marshall, Texas 75670, Courtroom 106, at 9:00 a.m., on May 1, 2012 to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting:
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Securities Litigation
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 2619
Faribault, MN 55021-9619
(866) 430-8117
www.PilgrimsPrideSecuritiesSettlement.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
