|
|
|
Indianapolis Bankruptcy Law Firm - Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP
Firm Websites |
2012/02/12 18:21
|
Creditor’s Rights
The Firm’s creditors’ rights expertise also includes such areas as foreclosures and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure; appointment of receivers; replevin, garnishment and attachment proceedings, pre-judgment and post-judgment; suits on guaranties, Uniform Commercial Code issues, and other commercial litigation matters.
Debt Relief
Our attorneys help individuals, consumers, business investors and small businesses file for bankruptcy protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code, whether it be a liquidation under Chapter 7 or a reorganization under Chapters 11 or 13. We strive to provide a high degree of service and personal care to each of our clients. Our philosophy is simple: provide competent and high quality bankruptcy services for a reasonable fee.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law is an Indianapolis based law firm. Their attorneys have substantial experience collecting monies owed to their business clients in Indiana state courts and in federal bankruptcy courts. The firm continues to focus on maximizing their client's recovery in an fast and cost-effective manner. Their goal is to provide high quality services and they have a lengthy record of success to show for it. Visit www.rbelaw.com to see more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Firm Websites |
2011/11/15 17:00
|
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 District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Human Genome Sciences, Inc. between July 20, 2009 and November 11, 2010, inclusive. Also included are those who acquired shares in the July 28, 2009 public offering at $14 per share and in the December 2, 2009 public offering at $26.75.
The Complaint charges that HGSI and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements concerning Benlysta®, HGSI's potential new drug for the treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, a chronic, life-threatening autoimmune disease. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Benlysta was associated with suicide in clinical drug trials conducted by HGSI.
The Complaint alleges that when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted its analysis of Benlysta on the Internet on November 12, 2010, investors learned for the first time of the association between Benlysta and suicide in clinical trials, causing HGSI's common stock price to fall. Meanwhile, the Complaint alleges, during the Class Period, HGSI sold over 44 million shares of its common stock in public offerings at artificially inflated prices, receiving $850 million in net proceeds.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January 10, 2012, 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/humangenomesciences/, 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class Action Lawsuit
Firm Websites |
2011/10/31 15:37
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Announces Class Action
Firm Websites |
2011/08/29 16:36
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against SinoTech Energy Limited, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters.
The lawsuit, which is captioned Crayder v. SinoTech Energy Limited, et al., 11-CV-05935, alleges violations of the United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of SinoTech's American Depository Shares ("ADSs") from November 3, 2010 through August 16, 2011 (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of ADSs in the Company's November 3, 2010 initial public offering (the "November IPO"). Claims for November IPO purchasers arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Claims for other Class Period purchasers fall under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The lawsuit asserts numerous problems with SinoTech's previously issued financial statements and declarations about its future prospects. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that: (1) the Company's sole import agent, which 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 are inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (6) positive statements the Company made regarding its internal financial controls were false and misleading.
On August 16, 2011, a research analyst writing under the name Alfred Little published an investigative report (the "Report") detailing these and other problems at SinoTech. The day the Report was issued, the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40%, falling from $4.02 per share on August 15, 2011 to $2.35 per share at the close of trading on August 16, 2011 - a decline of $1.67 per share on unusually high trading volume. The NASDAQ halted SinoTech trading after the market closed on August 16, 2011, announcing that trading would remain halted until the Company "fully satisfied NASDAQ's request for additional information." To date, trading has not resumed.
If you purchased the common stock of SinoTech and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 18, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this action, or you may do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and West Palm Beach, and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation.
The firm’s reputation for excellence has repeatedly been recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total over a billion dollars. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For more information visit www.cohenmilstein.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marathon Legal LLC
Firm Websites |
2010/09/01 14:17
|
Marathon Legal LLC enhances the legal profession by delivering exceptionally honest, transparent, and thorough legal representation at a fair price to the residents and businesses of Wisconsin. The firm improves the quality of human relations by modeling relationships built on trust and by rendering sound legal advice which promotes enduring justice, fairness, and goodwill. Marathon Legal LLC connects busy people to the operation of law as seamlessly as modern markets and technology practically allow.
Marathon Legal LLC provides business law, estate planning, and family law services to all of Central Wisconsin, including Marathon County, Marshfield, Portage County, Schofield, Stevens Point, Wausau, Weston, Wisconsin Rapids and Wood County. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Talk Show, Lawyer Websites - William Lerach
Firm Websites |
2010/08/18 02:25
|
For more than 20 years, William S. Lerach was the most feared lawyer in America. He and his former firm, Milberg Weiss, were Jedi masters of security law, targeting Fortune 500 companies for corporate fraud and recovering a staggering $45 billion in judgments. Tough and relentless, plaintiffs saw him as a savior, successfully suing WorldCom, Tyco, Disney,Merrill Lynch and Enron, among others. Lerach brought down high-flying CEOs and companies that routinely cooked the books to keep executives rich and shareholders broke. Famous for his class-action suits and novel legal tactics, he was the scourge of big business, forcing many companies, terrified of being “Lerached,” to settle out of court rather than fight. In January 2008, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice, admitting he paid a few regular plaintiffs millions in kickbacks to instigate cases that netted the firm some $200 million over two decades. (No plaintiff can benefit more than others in class-action suits.) He was fined nearly $8 million and sentenced to two years in prison. He was just released in March 2010.
Lerach was famous for tracking stock prices — charting fluctuations against optimistic statements and insider selling — before a stock crashed. If company chiefs cashed in while investors lost their savings, Lerach smelled blood. If public investments were fueled by false claims, the charge was “fraud on the market.” Plus, any investment bank and Big 8 accounting firm that aided and abetted the principles were charged as secondary participants, unleashing a legal juggernaut. Bill talks about himself, the legal profession, and his contributions on behalf of investors everywhere.
If there was ever a modern Greek tragedy about a man and his times, about corporate arrogance and illusions and the scorched-earth tactics to not only counteract corporate America but to beat it at its own game, Bill Lerach's story is it.
attorney web site design
http://www.legalnewsbrief.blogspot.com
http://www.lawfirmmarketingnews.blogspot.com
http://metrolinkcomesclean.blogspot.com/
http://metrolinkclassaction.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
