|
|
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Press Releases |
2012/01/16 17:43
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Chemed Corporation common stock during the period between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.
The complaint charges alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (1) that the Company engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services for patients who did not qualify for hospice and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the U.S. government; (2) that a significant portion of the Company’s hospice enrollments, revenues and earnings were the direct result of defendants’ scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services; (3) that, in a complaint filed under seal, a former VITAS manager had accused the Company of engaging in a Company-wide scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (4) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (5) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/che. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Firm Websites |
2012/01/16 17:43
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Netflix, Inc. common stock during the period between December 20, 2010 and October 24, 2011.
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 plaintiff’s 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/netflix. 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 Netflix and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netflix is a subscription service that streams television shows and movies over the Internet, and in the United States subscribers can have DVDs delivered to their homes.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and its contracts with content providers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Netflix’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011. While Netflix stock was inflated (partially by Netflix buying back its own stock), Company insiders were selling 388,661 shares of their own Netflix stock for proceeds of $90.2 million.
On September 15, 2011, Netflix updated its third quarter 2011 guidance and revealed that it had lost a million subscribers due to its recently announced price increases becoming effective. On this news, Netflix stock fell nearly $40 per share to close at just under $170 per share. On September 19, 2011, the Company announced that, in an effort to offset skyrocketing costs and rapidly defecting customers, the Company would begin charging separately for its two services and had raised prices as much as 60%. Netflix stock dropped to $130 per share on this news. Then, on October 24, 2011, Netflix issued its third quarter 2011 shareholder letter, which reported a net loss of 810,000 U.S. subscribers, translating into a cumulative loss of 5.5 million subscribers. The subsequently filed Form 10-Q revealed that Netflix’s obligations for content over the coming years had skyrocketed to $3.5 billion, with $2.8 billion due within three years. These disclosures caused Netflix stock to collapse from $118.84 per share on October 24, 2011 to $80.86 per share on October 27, 2011, a 32% decline in three days and a 73% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) Netflix had short-term contracts with content providers and defendants were aware that the Company faced the choice of renegotiating the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates or not renewing them at all; (b) content providers were already demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically alter Netflix’s business; (c) defendants recognized that Netflix’s pricing would have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be incurring; and (d) Netflix was not on track to achieve the earnings forecasts made by and for the Company for 2011.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Netflix common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court hearing Thursday on Credit Suisse loans
Legal Watch |
2012/01/13 18:14
|
Attorneys for Credit Suisse told a federal judge in Idaho that a multi-billion dollar lawsuit brought by homeowners at four resorts should be tossed out because there's not enough factual evidence to support the claims.
The lawsuit from property owners at Idaho's Tamarack Resort, the Yellowstone Club in Montana, Nevada's Lake Las Vegas resort and the Ginn Sur Mer Resort in the Bahamas is backed by Yellowstone Club founder Tim Blixseth. The plaintiffs allege Credit Suisse inflated the value of the resorts and issued loans so large to developers that they could never be repaid in hopes of foreclosing on the properties as part of a so-called "loan to own" scheme.
Credit Suisse contends the lawsuit is baseless and that Blixseth is just trying to escape blame for the financial problems at the ultra-exclusive Yellowstone Club.
Roughly two dozen attorneys representing the plaintiffs, Credit Suisse and real estate consultant Cushman & Wakefield gathered before U.S. District Judge Ronald Bush in Boise on Thursday to argue over several motions, including one to have the lawsuit dismissed and one to have Cushman & Wakefield reinstated as a defendant. The real estate consultancy was listed as a defendant when the case was originally filed in 2010, but last year U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge dismissed all the claims against the company.
One of Credit Suisse's attorneys, David Lender, told the court that the plaintiffs have never been able to show there was any misrepresentation made to the homeowners by the bank. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court orders new psychiatric review of Breivik
Top Legal News |
2012/01/12 18:14
|
A Norwegian court on Friday ordered a new psychiatric evaluation of confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik, after an earlier report found him legally insane.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen said in Oslo the new evaluation is necessary considering widespread criticism of the initial findings, which suggested Breivik should be sent to psychiatric care instead of prison.
The 32-year-old Norwegian has confessed to a bomb and shooting spree July 22 that killed 77 people and traumatized the peaceful Scandinavian country.
Breivik denies criminal guilt, saying he's a commander of a resistance movement aiming to overthrow European governments and replace them with "patriotic" regimes that would deport Muslim immigrants.
Investigators have found no sign of such a movement and say Breivik most likely plotted and carried out the attacks on his own.
Arntzen said two Norwegian psychiatrists — Agnar Aspaas and Terje Toerrisen — had been appointed for the new evaluation.
However, Breivik doesn't want to talk to them because he doesn't believe they will understand him any better than the experts who interviewed him for the first assessment, defense lawyer Geir Lippestad, told reporters after speaking to his client in prison.
Lippestad also said that the defense team is skeptical toward a new evaluation because the first assessment was leaked to Norwegian media. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Law Office of James C. Kelly Announces Investigation
Press Releases |
2012/01/11 17:56
|
The Law Office of James C. Kelly announces that it is investigating potential claims against the board of directors of Inhibitex, Inc. concerning possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law related to the Company's entry into an agreement to be acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company in a transaction with an approximate value of $2.5 billion.
Under the proposed agreement, Bristol-Myers will commence a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Inhibitex's common stock at a price of $26.00 per share in cash. The investigation concerns whether Inhibitex's board of directors adequately shopped the Company to obtain the best price possible for the Company's shareholders before entering into the agreement with Bristol-Myers.
If you are a holder of Inhibitex common stock and want to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call The Law Office of James C. Kelly who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. Please contact James C. Kelly, Esq., of The Law Office of James C. Kelly, 477 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, by toll free telephone at (888) 643-7517
For more information about the firm, please visit its website at http://www.jckellylaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Class Action
Headline News |
2012/01/10 17:55
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Camelot Information Systems Inc. American Depositary Shares between July 21, 2010 and August 17, 2011, including those who acquired Camelot ADSs pursuant or traceable to the Company’s false and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued in connection with its July 21, 2010 initial public offering and December 10, 2010 Secondary Offering.
The complaint charges Camelot, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Offerings with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Camelot is a holding company that conducts business through its operating subsidiaries in China. The Company is a provider of enterprise application services and financial industry information technology services in China.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose negative trends in Camelot’s business, including with Camelot’s most important customers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Camelot ADSs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $26.73 per share on January 11, 2011.
On July 21, 2010, Camelot announced the pricing of its IPO of 13.3 million ADSs at $11.00 per ADS. Subsequently, on December 9, 2010, Camelot announced the pricing of its Secondary Offering of 7,160,206 ADSs by selling shareholders at $19.50 per ADS. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements issued in connection with the Offerings were inaccurate and misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
On August 15, 2011, Seeking Alpha published an article questioning several key components of Camelot’s business. This caused Camelot’s ADSs to drop to below $9 per share. Then on August 18, 2011, Camelot issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2011 unaudited financial results, including lower-than-expected guidance for fiscal 2011. On this news, Camelot’s ADSs dropped $2.24 per share to close at $6.32 per share on August 18, 2011, a one-day decline of 26%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s IT professionals were not a competitive advantage to the Company and many were dissatisfied with Camelot, which would adversely affect Camelot’s ability to retain its customers; (b) the Company was suffering from undisclosed attrition of employees, which was having a negative impact on the Company’s ability to attract new customers; (c) Camelot did not have the large numbers of highly trained professionals at its disposal that it had represented; and (d) Camelot’s contract with its most important customer, IBM, was not as solid as represented, and would not be renewed on the same terms.
www.bernlieb.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme court won't let man appeal murder conviction
Headline News |
2012/01/10 17:55
|
The Supreme Court won't let a man sentenced to prison for murder appeal his conviction despite his complaints that his window for further consideration was unfairly closed.
The high court on Tuesday upheld the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez.
Gonzalez appealed his conviction for murder and his 30-year sentence in 2006 but missed one of the state lower court appeals deadlines. The federal courts since then have refused to hear his appeal, saying he filed in federal court one month after the required one-year deadline.
The courts started counting from the day Gonzalez missed the state court deadline, but the inmate said they should have started counting after the Texas courts officially declared his case over.
The high court said that the lower courts had correctly calculated the deadline for Gonzalez to file. Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote that Gonzalez's one-year deadline to appeal to the federal court began when he missed the state court filing date. Since Gonzalez filed one month after that one-year cutoff, the judgment against him became final, she said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
