|
|
|
Wis. Supreme Court takes payday loan case
Lawyer Blog News |
2011/09/26 16:21
|
The state Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Wisconsin law permits judges to determine when payday loan interest rates are too high.
The court will consider whether state statutes block judges from determining if a particular interest rate is unconscionable and, if they don't, what evidence would prove rates are too high.
The case stems from loans Jesica Mount of Onalaska secured from Payday Loan Stores of Wisconsin Inc. in 2008. According to court documents, annual interest rates on the loans varied from 446 percent to 1,338 percent.
The loan company filed a lawsuit against Mount after she failed to make her payments. Mount filed a counterclaim alleging the loans violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act because the rates were unconscionable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action News |
2011/09/26 16:19
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyers seek to stop Loughner's forced medication
Legal Career News |
2011/09/26 13:19
|
Lawyers for the Tucson shooting rampage suspect asked a federal court again Friday to stop his forced medication at a medical facility in a Missouri prison.
Jared Lee Loughner's lead attorney, Judy Clarke, wrote in an emergency motion that the ongoing forced medication of her client is unlawful. She said Loughner will suffer "irreparable harm" unless the prison is ordered to cease giving him a daily "four-drug cocktail," or at least start tapering him off it.
Loughner, 23, has been at the Springfield, Mo., facility since May 27 after he was found to be mentally unfit to stand trial. Experts have concluded he suffers from schizophrenia and are trying to restore his competency.
Loughner has pleaded not guilty to 49 charges stemming from the Jan. 8 shooting at a political event outside a northwest Tucson supermarket. The rampage left six people dead and 13 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who is still recovering.
Prison officials have forcibly medicated Loughner with psychotropic drugs after concluding he posed a danger at the facility. Federal prosecutors have previously argued Loughner should remain medicated because his mental and physical condition has been rapidly deteriorating.
Clarke said Loughner "has an exceptionally strong interest in not being executed." But she noted it is "no secret" that the government may seek the death penalty if the case is eventually tried. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung seeks iPhone, iPad sale ban in Dutch court
Court Feed News |
2011/09/26 11:19
|
Samsung asked a Dutch court Monday to slap an injunction on Apple Inc. to prevent it from selling iPhones and iPad tablets in the Netherlands, saying Apple does not have licenses to use 3G mobile technology in the devices.
The legal battle is the latest round in a series of claims and counterclaims of patent breaches by the rival technology heavyweights playing out in courtrooms around the world.
Samsung Electronics Co. lawyer Bas Berghuis told a civil judge at The Hague District Court that Apple "never bothered to ask about licenses" before it started selling 3G-enabled iPhones.
Apple lawyer Rutger Kleemans hit back by accusing Samsung of using the patent dispute to "hold Apple hostage" because of Apple's legal battles accusing Samsung of copying its iPhone and iPad designs.
"It's a holdup," Kleemans said. "Because Apple dared to take action against Samsung's copycat tactics."
Kleemans urged the court to reject the injunction request, saying the patents involved "are not designed to be used as a weapon against Apple."
No date was immediately given for a ruling.
Earlier this month, a court in Duesseldorf, Germany, ruled that Samsung cannot sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany because its design too closely resembled the iPad2. The ruling only applied to direct sales from the Samsung, meaning distributors who acquire the Tab 10.1 from abroad could resell them in Germany. Samsung said it would appeal that judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules that UBS trader should stay in custody
Court Feed News |
2011/09/22 13:35
|
An alleged rogue trader accused of losing Swiss banking giant UBS about $2.3 billion is "sorry beyond words," his lawyer said Thursday, as a judge ordered him to be held in jail until a hearing next month. Kweku Adoboli, 31, is charged with four offenses of fraud and false accounting dating back to 2008 and accused of racking up losses in authorized trades. His arrest a week ago has heaped pressure on UBS Chief Executive Oswald Gruebel and stoked speculation that the bank could get rid of its investment banking operations. At a court hearing in London, prosecuting lawyer David Levy added a new fraud offense to the three previous charges laid against Adoboli, and confirmed that authorities had revised upward the amount allegedly gambled away by the trader to around $2.3 billion. A previous hearing was told the trader was accused of losing $2 billion. Patrick Gibbs, defending Adoboli, said his client — who wore a gray suit, white shirt and dark blue tie — was truly sorry for his actions. "He is sorry beyond words for what has happened here, he went to UBS and told them what he had done, and stands now appalled at the scale of the consequences of his disastrous miscalculations," Gibbs said. Adoboli, who appeared confident and nodded in acknowledgment to a handful of supporters attending the hearing, spoke only to confirm his name, birth date and address. He did not enter any pleas to the charges. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court in Va. tosses 2 Abu Ghraib lawsuits
Legal Career News |
2011/09/22 11:34
|
A federal appeals court in Virginia has dismissed two lawsuits by former Iraqi detainees who claimed they were tortured at the Abu Ghraib prison.
A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Wednesday with two contractors who claimed immunity because they were doing the government's work in providing interrogators and translators to the U.S.-run prison near Baghdad.
In one of the cases, four Iraqis claimed they were abused by interrogators employed by CACI International Inc. The other lawsuit was filed by 72 Iraqis against L-3 Services, which provided translators at Abu Ghraib and other prisons.
The appeals court's ruling reversed decisions by federal judges in Alexandria, Va., and Greenbelt, Md., who had rejected the contractors' immunity claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
