|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Press Releases |
2012/02/10 17:31
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. between February 1, 2011 and October 18, 2011, inclusive.
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, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058. 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/powerwave/. 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 Powerwave and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Powerwave engages in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of wireless solutions for wireless communications networks worldwide.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing a dramatic decline in demand from customers in its North American markets; (ii) that the Company was rapidly burning through its free cash flow as revenues declined and expenses increased; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its operations and earnings.
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.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group wants Supreme Court to save war memorial
Legal Watch |
2012/02/09 18:10
|
Supporters of a war memorial cross deemed unconstitutional last year by a federal court plan to ask the Supreme Court to reverse the decision, amid a growing fight nationwide over the use of religious symbols to honor fallen troops.
A nonprofit legal firm, Liberty Institute in Dallas, planned to file its petition Thursday to preserve the 43-foot monument on federal land atop San Diego's Mt. Soledad — the same day the group called on combat veterans and supporters to rally at the picturesque site overlooking the Pacific Ocean in the suburb of La Jolla.
The Supreme Court has signaled a greater willingness to allow religious symbols on public land, and the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last month that writes into law the propriety of displaying such markers at war memorials.
Last year's ruling by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals capped two decades of legal challenges over the 1954 cross that became a memorial to Korean War veterans.
A number of other military memorials on public lands across the country have been challenged in recent years by civil liberty activists and atheists who say they violate the separation between church and state. The Supreme Court in 2010 refused to order the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home atop a remote rocky outcropping in California's Mojave Desert. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BofA investor lawsuit wins class-action status
Court Center |
2012/02/08 17:43
|
Investors suing Bank of America Corp won class-action status for their lawsuit accusing the bank of fraudulently misleading them about the 2008 takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co and the size of Merrill's losses and bonus payouts.
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel in Manhattan on Monday rejected the second-largest U.S. bank's argument that the investors could not prove they suffered losses by relying on materially misleading statements or omissions.
Among the other defendants who were also sued and opposed class certification were former Bank of America Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis, former Merrill Chief Executive John Thain, former Bank of America Chief Financial Officer Joe Price, and Bank of America's board of directors.
Lewis had won initial praise for saving Merrill from possible collapse when he agreed to buy it on September 15, 2008, the day Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc went bankrupt.
But investors later faulted the bank for not disclosing the scope of Merrill's soaring losses, which reached $15.84 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, before December 2008 shareholder votes on the merger. They also objected to Merrill's having paid $3.6 billion of bonuses despite the losses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Experts: Marriage ban's path to high court unclear
Legal News |
2012/02/08 17:43
|
Conservative critics like to point out that the federal appeals court that just declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional has its decisions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court more often than other judicial circuits, a record that could prove predictive if the high court agrees to review the gay marriage case on appeal.
Yet legal experts seemed to think the panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals struck down the voter-approved ban on Tuesday purposefully served up its 2-1 opinion in a narrow way and seasoned it with established holdings so the Supreme Court would be less tempted to bite.
The appeals court not only limited the scope of its decision to California, even though the 9th Circuit also has jurisdiction in eight other western states, but relied on the Supreme Court's own 1996 decision overturning a Colorado measure that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people to argue that the voter-approved Proposition 8 violated the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians.
That approach makes it much less likely the high court would find it necessary to step in, as it might have if the 9th Circuit panel had concluded that any state laws or amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal treatment, several analysts said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah high court to hear posthumous benefits case
Legal News |
2012/02/07 18:09
|
Utah's Supreme Court is deciding whether a sperm donor contract is proof that a man wanted to be a father, even after his death.
The question stems from a dispute between Gayle Burns and the Social Security Administration, which denied survivor benefits to the son Burns conceived after her husband died from cancer.
Oral arguments are set Tuesday in Salt Lake City.
Michael Burns had contracted with medical providers to preserve his sperm before he died of cancer in 2001. Gayle Burns became pregnant in 2003.
Social Security denied a 2005 benefits petition, saying federal law doesn't allow for payments to posthumously-conceived children.
Gayle Burns challenged the ruling in Utah's federal court.
A federal judge asked Utah's Supreme Court to address the issue first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Umeda LLP Announces Class Action
Law Firm Business |
2012/02/06 18:04
|
Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP, announces that the firm commenced a class action lawsuit on February 3, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between February 12, 2010 and December 15, 2011 (the "Class Period"). The action is against the Company and the Company's Chief Executive Officer for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
BioSante Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical Company focused on developing products for female sexual health and oncology. Over the last decade, BioSante has been in the process of developing LibiGel, a drug designed to improve the sex drive of women suffering from female sexual dysfunction, specifically hypoactive desire disorder.
The complaint alleges that beginning on February 12, 2010, the Company, along with its Chief Executive Officer, issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to investors about LibiGel's commercial viability, effectiveness, and market potential that caused shares of BioSante to trade at artificially high prices. Specifically, it is alleged that officials at BioSante boasted that clinical data demonstrated that LibiGel had a "statistically significant" effect on female patients treated with the product, and that LibiGel was "the most clinically advanced pharmaceutical product in the U.S." Additionally, it is alleged that BioSante and its Chief Executive Officer misled investors by routinely analogizing LibiGel's market potential to the $2 billion dollar market for male erectile drugs, often comparing LibiGel to products like "Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis."
Robbins Umeda LLP represents individual and institutional shareholders in derivative, direct, and class action lawsuits. The law firm's skilled litigation teams include former federal prosecutors, former defense counsel from top multinational corporate law firms, and career shareholder rights attorneys. Robbins Umeda LLP has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. For more information, please go to http://www.robbinsumeda.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action
Law Firm Business |
2012/02/06 18:03
|
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 Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Cablevision Systems Corporation between February 16, 2011 and October 28, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Cablevision and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that Cablevision was experiencing higher retention and advertising costs; (ii) that Cablevision was losing more video customers than expected, especially in the New York area -- the Company's main service area -- due to increased competition; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
On October 28, 2011, Cablevision announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2011, the period ended September 30, 2011. On that same day, Cablevision held a conference call with analysts and investors to discuss the earnings announcement and the Company's operations, including the Company's subscriber loss. In reaction to the Company's announcement, the price of Cablevision stock fell $2.17 per share, or 13%, to close at $15.14 per share.
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/cablevision |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
