|
|
|
Girard Gibbs LLP Announces Class Action Settlement
Law Firm News |
2012/01/19 16:34
|
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP today announced that two years after bringing a class action case against Securities America, Inc., its corporate parent Securities America Financial Corporation and Ameriprise Financial, Inc., over 2,000 investors throughout the U.S. are receiving checks totaling $80 million. Investors will recover an average of over $30,000 per person.
The distribution represents the last chapter of a lawsuit filed by Securities America customers who purchased private placement investments in Medical Capital Notes and Provident Royalties, which were both revealed to be Ponzi schemes. Girard Gibbs and associated counsel represented the investors and won final approval of the $80 million settlement in Federal District Court in Dallas, Texas on July 25, 2011.
“We are pleased that our clients will recover a substantial percentage of their losses within two years of the date this litigation got underway,” said Daniel Girard, senior partner at Girard Gibbs. “We commend our adversaries for coming to the settlement table in good faith and negotiating a fair compromise with all the affected investors.”
For more information, please access the firm’s web site at www.GirardGibbs.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amazon Hit With Class Action Over Zappos Data Breach
Business Law Info |
2012/01/18 18:01
|
Shoe retailer Zappos is facing a national class action suit one day after it warned customers that its servers had been hacked.
On Monday, the Amazon-owned shoe company sent a mass email stating that 24 million customer accounts had been breached. The incident resulted in hackers obtaining names, phone numbers, emails, encrypted passwords and the last four numbers of customer credit cards.
The lawsuit claims Amazon violated a part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to properly encrypt and secure customer information, and seeks unspecified damages for 24 million customers.
The lead plaintiff in the case is a Texas woman but the suit was filed in federal court in Louisville, Kentucky on the grounds that Amazon has servers located in that state.
As these type of hacking incidents have become more common, so too have related lawsuits. So far, though, few of these lawsuits been successful because customers have been unable to show that they have been harmed by the data breaches.
The Kentucky lawsuit appears based in part on a novel legal theory that customers will now be more susceptible to phishing and other online scams because hackers have their email. It also alleges the plaintiffs suffered emotional distress. Other high-profile data breach cases such as one involving Sony’s Play Station have been based in part on state consumer laws.
Although courts have been reluctant to find that customers have been harmed by data breaches, there is evidence this may be changing. A security publication recently reported
that an appeals court allowed customers to claim they suffered harm in the form of having to buy insurance for identity theft.
Some media publications this week praised Zappos’ for having a pre-arranged plan to respond to the data theft. The company claims that its customer credit cards remained secure because they were stored in a separate server. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court lets telemarketers be sued in federal court
Legal Career News |
2012/01/18 18:00
|
The Supreme Court is keeping telemarketers and other businesses on the hook for nuisance phone calls, letting those annoyed by the disruptions sue in federal as well as state courts.
The high court's decision Wednesday involves a lawsuit claiming a debt collector harassed a man with repeated recorded calls.
Marcus Mims of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said he kept getting the calls from Arrow Financial Services LLC, which was trying to collect a student loan debt for Sallie Mae. He sued for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, passed by Congress to ban invasive telemarketing practices.
Mims' lawsuit was thrown out by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that Congress did not explicitly give permission for federal lawsuits in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, although the law does say people can file in state courts. Other federal courts ruled differently and let lawsuits move forward.
The high court said in a unanimous opinion that federal lawsuits are allowed under the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action News |
2012/01/18 13:01
|
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Chemed Corporation between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.
The Complaint alleges that Chemed and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) Chemed billed Medicare for hospice services for ineligible patients and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the government; (ii) that a significant portion of the Company's revenues were the result of defendants' scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (iii) that, in a sealed complaint, a former VITAS manager accused Chemed of wrongfully enrolling ineligible patients in hospice; and (iv) Chemed's financial results were materially overstated.
On November 16, 2011, a Bloomberg article disclosed that a former VITAS manager had accused Chemed of defrauding the government by conspiring with health insurers to enroll Medicare patients who were not dying into hospice. The article also discussed a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into fraudulent conduct by VITAS. On this news, shares of Chemed fell $6.87 to close at $50.65 per share.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 12, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.
While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/chemed/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pacman Jones pleads guilty to disorderly conduct
Court Feed News |
2012/01/18 13:00
|
Cincinnati Bengals cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones pleaded guilty Wednesday to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct.
Jones entered the plea in Hamilton County Municipal Court just as his non-jury trial was scheduled to begin. A second misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest was dismissed in a plea agreement with prosecutors.
Judge Brad Greenberg ordered Jones to serve a year of probation, complete 50 hours of community service and pay a $250 fine plus court costs. Jones could have received a maximum jail sentence of 30 days.
Jones, 28, was accused in court documents of being disorderly, shouting profanities and trying to pull away as officers arrested him at a downtown bar in July.
At the time, Jones was on probation in Las Vegas in connection with a 2007 no contest plea to a strip club melee that left three people wounded. He was ordered in November to perform an additional 75 hours of community service for violating that probation with the Cincinnati arrest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects appeals in student speech cases
Court Feed News |
2012/01/17 19:05
|
The U.S. Supreme Court has passed up a pair of cases for the online age — whether schools may censor students who are at home when they create online attacks against school officials and other students.
The justices on Tuesday rejected appeals from Pennsylvania and West Virginia involving questions about the limits on criticism from students and where the authority of school officials ends.
The high court decision left standing lower court rulings that two Pennsylvania students cannot be disciplined at school for parodies of their principals that they created on home computers and posted online.
In the West Virginia case, an appeals court upheld the suspension of a student who created a web page that suggested another student had a sexually transmitted disease, and invited classmates to comment.
Lawyers on both sides were disappointed the high court chose not to step into the fray over student speech posted online, as federal court judges have issued a broad range of opinions on the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
