|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Class Action News |
2011/11/10 10:36
|
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action (CV 11 5399 RS) filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Diamond during the period from December 9, 2010 through and including November 4, 2011 (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased DMND securities during the Class Period, you have until January 6, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company overstated its earnings by improperly accounting for certain crop payments to walnut growers; (2) the Company's acquisition of Pringles snack business would be delayed; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action News |
2011/11/07 19:48
|
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 Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. between August 27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive.
The Complaint charges that OmniVision and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by concealing the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple. On August 25, 2011 OmniVision disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-megapixel product line. As a result, OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new iPhone 4S, released on October 14, 2011.
In response to this news, OmniVision stock declined $7.55 per share, over 30%, to close at $17.27 on August 26, 2011. On October 14, 2011, when the iPhone 4S was released, experts examined the phone's camera and determined that Sony, not Omnivision, had supplied a key component. On this confirmation of the reduced role of the Company's components in the iPhone 4S, OmniVision stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3%, to close at $15.95 per share.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 27, 2011, 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/omnivision/, 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action News |
2011/10/31 15:51
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on October 26, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. common stock between August 27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The action charges OmniVision and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that the Company had concealed the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple Inc. ("Apple") to supply imaging sensors for Apple's celebrated iPhone.
OmniVision is a designer and manufacturer of image sensors that are used in digital cameras to convert optical images into electronic signals. OmniVision is one of the leading suppliers of complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors ("CMOS") sensors used in mobile telephones. The Complaint alleges that OmniVision failed to disclose that: (a) it had lost its lucrative, high-profile, and exclusive contract with Apple; (b) competition was eroding its "leadership position" in the smartphone industry; (c) delays in the development of its 8-megapixel product line were threatening its prospects; and (d) it lacked a reasonable basis for its statements about its bright prospects in the smartphone market.
On August 25, 2011, OmniVision announced its results for the fiscal first quarter of 2012 and provided guidance for the fiscal second quarter of 2012 that was well below analyst expectations. The Company also disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-megapixel product line. Based on the Company's disappointing guidance, analysts recognized that OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new, fifth generation iPhone--the iPhone 4S--set for release in the fall of 2011. As a result of these revelations, OmniVision's stock declined $7.55 per share, or 30.4 percent, to close at $17.27 per share on August 26, 2011 on extraordinary trading volume.
On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.
On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.
If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm.
Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country's premier law firms representing institutional investors in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for more than 45 years, seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action News |
2011/10/27 10:10
|
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 New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of China Automotive Systems, Inc. between March 20, 2010 and March 17, 2011.
The Complaint charges that China Automotive and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following: (i) China Automotive improperly accounted for its convertible notes issued on February 15, 2008; (ii) that, as a result, the Company's financial results were incorrectly stated; (iii) that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (iv) China Automotive lacked adequate internal and financial controls.
On March 17, 2011, the Company's audit committee stated it would delay the annual financial statement and would need to restate all previously issued financial statements for the fiscal year 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010. On this news, shares of China Automotive fell to a closing price of $8.81 per share. On March 18, 2011, the Company announced that it received a letter from NASDAQ stating it was no longer in compliance with NASDAQ Marketplace rules.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 26, 2011, 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/chinaautomotive/, 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott+Scott LLP Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action News |
2011/10/24 17:00
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
No class-action status in Countrywide case
Class Action News |
2011/10/14 12:06
|
A federal judge in Kentucky has rejected class-action status in a lawsuit accusing Countrywide Bank of charging African-American and Hispanic borrowers more for home loans than Caucasian borrowers. U.S. District Judge John Heyburn II on Thursday ruled that Countrywide's policy put a great deal of discretion in the hands of individual loan officers, leaving too many variables at play to conclude that "even unconscious discriminatory motive or thought similarly animated thousands of mortgage rate decisions." "However, the idea that thousands of loan officers in hundreds of separate locations around the country would exercise their discretion in a similarly discriminatory fashion as to each purported class member defies belief," Heyburn wrote. "Whether an individual loan officer or a single office did so, might be a different question." A dozen people sued Countrywide, which is now owned by Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America, in 2008, claiming they and others were treated differently from other customers looking for a home loan between 2005 and 2007. Boston-based attorney Gary Klein said the plaintiffs are evaluating the decision. "The unexplained additional mortgage costs that correlate with race increase the cost of homeownership for minority borrowers across the country and are contributing to unnecessary foreclosures," Klein said. Bank of America spokeswoman Shirley Norton said the company was pleased with the decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
