|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
