|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action News |
2011/10/03 09:40
|
Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the American Depositary Shares of SinoTech Energy Limited (“SinoTech” or the “Company”) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering commencing November 3, 2010, including purchasers of SinoTech ADSs between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at 310-201-9150 or Toll Free at 888-773-9224, by email at shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.
SinoTech provides Enhanced Oil Recovery (“EOR”) services to major oil and gas fields in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that the Company’s Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO was materially misleading and misrepresented the nature, size and scope of the Company’s business. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that SinoTech and certain of its executive officers and/or directors, among others, misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s sole import agent, who accounted for more than $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company’s only chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company’s largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast majority of SinoTech’s revenues, has unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States were inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation of GAAP; (6) as such, the Company’s financial results were not prepared in accordance with GAAP; (7) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8), as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On August 16, 2011, following the disclosures of these allegations in a research report published by Alfredlittle.com, the NASDAQ halted the trading of SinoTech shares and announced that trading would remain halted until the Company “fully satisfied NASDAQ’s request for additional information.” To date, trading of SinoTech has not resumed.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the Court, no later than October 18, 2011, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class you need not take action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at 310-201-9150 or Toll Free at 888-773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rentech Announces Final Court Approvals of Settlements
Class Action News |
2011/09/28 11:32
|
Rentech, Inc. announced today that it has received final court approvals for the settlements of the securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits against the Company and a number of its current and former directors and officers. The lawsuits related to the Company’s restatement in December 2009 of certain of its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009. The Company believed that it was in the best interests of its stockholders to settle the matters at a reasonable cost to avoid potentially protracted and expensive litigation. The Company and the individual defendants have denied any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations contained in these lawsuits.
The settlement for the consolidated class action lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW) provides for a settlement fund of $1.8 million, from which plaintiffs' counsel will receive an award of attorneys fees and expenses. The settlements for the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:10-cv-0485-GHK-PJW) and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Andrew L. Tarr v. Dennis L. Yakobson, et al., LASC Master File No. BC430553) provide that the Company adopt certain governance practices, and pay (or cause its insurance carrier to pay) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses of $300,000. Over 90% of the aggregate securities class action and shareholder derivative settlement payments are covered by Rentech’s insurance carriers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kona coffee dispute prompts class-action lawsuit
Class Action News |
2011/09/21 14:16
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court sets aside class-action suit by Costco women
Class Action News |
2011/09/21 10:19
|
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Walmart ruling, a federal appeals court set aside - but did not dismiss - a class-action suit by more than 700 women who accused discount retailer Costco of using an "old-boys' network" to bypass them for promotions.
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled in 2007 that the women had presented enough evidence of a "common culture" at Costco to proceed with a single nationwide suit against the company, rather than file individual claims.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision Friday, relying in part on the Supreme Court's ruling in June dismissing a class action against Walmart by as many as 1.5 million female employees. The high court said the women had failed to show a company-wide policy that allegedly led to gender-based disparities in pay and promotions.
Likewise, the appeals court said, the Costco plaintiffs have not yet shown that they have enough in common to justify a class action.
The court said opposing expert witnesses disagreed about a central issue - whether the company promoted women less often than men in all regions or only a few - and said U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel should have resolved the dispute before letting the case proceed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Filed Against Former, Current A&P Execs
Class Action News |
2011/09/12 15:51
|
A class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Inc. (A&P) for the period between July 23, 2009, and Dec. 10, 2010. The complaint, filed Sept. 9 by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, Philadelphia and Atlanta, claims that some former and current A&P executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A&P itself wasn’t named as a defendant in the action because it filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2010.
Those named in the action are former Executive Chairman and CEO Christian Haub, former CEO and President Eric Claus, former CFO and Treasurer Brenda Galgano, Vice Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer Andreas Guldin, former CEO and President Ron Marshall, and current CEO and President Sam Martin.
The complaint alleges that during the period mentioned above, the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the class action alleges that the executives failed to reveal that A&P was facing increased low-cost competition from retailers such as Walmart and Target, which negatively affected its business and financial condition; that the Pathmark acquisition was a “complete disaster” for the company, as Pathmark’s operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to investors; that A&P wasn’t operating according to internal expectations and couldn’t achieve the guidance endorsed by the defendants; and that, as a result of these factors, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company, its operations and prospects.
The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of A&P securities during the period noted above. Those who are member of this class can view a copy of the complaint or join the class action online at www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aandp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
