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