|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Court Center |
2011/11/07 20:32
|
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 Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. between August 27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive.
The Complaint charges that OmniVision and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by concealing the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple. On August 25, 2011 OmniVision disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-megapixel product line. As a result, OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new iPhone 4S, released on October 14, 2011. In response to this news, OmniVision stock declined $7.55 per share, over 30%, to close at $17.27 on August 26, 2011. On October 14, 2011, when the iPhone 4S was released, experts examined the phone's camera and determined that Sony, not Omnivision, had supplied a key component. On this confirmation of the reduced role of the Company's components in the iPhone 4S, OmniVision stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3%, to close at $15.95 per share.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 27, 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/omnivision/, 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't hear 'Ghost Hunters' appeal
Court Center |
2011/11/07 20:30
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from some television networks being sued by a paranormal investigator who claims his idea was stolen and turned into the television show "Ghost Hunters."
Without comment, the court turned away an appeal from NBC Universal, Inc., Universal Television Networks and Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.
Parapsychologist Larry Montz and producer Daena Smoller unsuccessfully shopped around an idea for a show about paranormal investigators in 1981. "Ghost Hunters" appeared on the Sci Fi Channel — now known as SyFy — in 2004.
Montz and Smoller sued in federal court. The courts threw out their copyright claims, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that they could sue for breach of an implied contract and breach of confidence claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-owner of Pa. youth lockups gets 18 months
Court Center |
2011/11/04 16:00
|
The former owner of two juvenile detention facilities was sentenced Friday to 18 months in prison for his role in a kickback scheme that led the state Supreme Court to vacate the convictions of thousands of juveniles who appeared before a now-jailed Pennsylvania judge.
Robert Powell pleaded guilty in 2009 to concealing a felony and an accessory charge in the so-called "kids for cash" scandal.
Powell testified earlier this year that he was forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to former Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella Jr. and Michael Conahan in return for their support of his two private juvenile detention facilities.
Powell said the judges extorted more than $725,000 from him after they shut down the county-run detention center and instead sent juveniles to his new lockup outside the city of Wilkes-Barre.
Sentencing guidelines call for a punishment of between 27 to 33 months in prison, but Powell was given credit for cooperating with the government.
When Powell became aware he was a target of the investigation, he approached prosecutors and offered to provide details of the scheme. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court tosses $43M award against Ford in crash case
Court Center |
2011/11/04 15:59
|
The Illinois Supreme Court has thrown out an Illlinois jury's $43 million award against Ford Motor Co. in a product-liability lawsuit linked to a fiery 2003 crash that killed a Missouri man and disfigured his wife.
The high court, in a Sept. 22 ruling made public Wednesday, among other things found that the lawsuit on Dora and John Jablonski's behalf did not give sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude Ford negligently "breached its duty of reasonable care" in designing the Lincoln Town Car involved in the wreck.
Justices also found that Illinois law does not require a company to warn of defects undetected before the product left the manufacturer.
Pinning the tragic wreck on the distracted motorist who hit the Jablonskis from behind at 60 mph, Ford said in an emailed statement Thursday it was "gratified" by the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling that "recognized and corrected the substantial efforts and deficiencies in the earlier proceedings."
The automaker said the 1993 Town Car exceeded all federal crash safety standards and received a five-star safety rating — the highest possible — from the U.S. government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court reinstates 'shaken baby' conviction
Court Center |
2011/10/31 15:38
|
The Supreme Court has again reinstated the conviction of a California woman for shaking her 7-week-old grandson to death, a final ruling that ends a protracted dispute with the federal appeals court in San Francisco.
The justices voted 6-3 Monday to reverse the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in favor of Shirley Ree Smith. The appeals court had three times set aside Smith's conviction, saying the case likely was "a miscarriage of justice." The appeals court said there was "no demonstrable support" for the prosecution's theory of the case.
But the high court said that even though doubts about Smith's guilt are "understandable," the appeals court should have deferred to state courts that upheld Smith's conviction.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Ginsburg, writing for the dissenters, said the court should have passed up the chance to "teach the 9th Circuit a lesson" in a tragic case.
"What is now known about shaken baby syndrome casts grave doubt on the charge leveled against Smith; and uncontradicted evidence shows that she poses no danger whatever to her family or anyone else in society," Ginsburg said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama immigration fight recalls civil rights era
Court Center |
2011/10/30 15:38
|
The epicenter of the fight over the patchwork of immigration laws in the United States is not Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico and became a common site for boycotts. Nor was it any of the four states that were next to pass their own crackdowns.
No, the case that's likely to be the first sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court comes from the Deep South state of Alabama, where the nation's strictest immigration law has resurrected ugly images from the state's days as the nation's battleground for civil rights a half-century ago.
And Alabama's jump to the forefront says as much about the country's evolving demographics as it does the nation's collective memory of the state's sometimes violent path to desegregation.
With the failure of Congress in recent years to pass comprehensive federal immigration legislation, Arizona, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina and Indiana have passed their own. But supporters and opponents alike agree none contained provisions as strict as those passed in Alabama, among them one that required schools to check students' immigration status. That provision, which has been temporarily blocked, would allow the Supreme Court to reconsider a decision that said a kindergarten to high school education must be provided to illegal immigrants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US House group files motion in gay marriage suit
Court Center |
2011/10/17 17:09
|
Gays and lesbians are not entitled to the same heightened legal protection and scrutiny against discrimination as racial minorities and women in part because they are far from politically powerless and have ample ability to influence lawmakers, lawyers for a U.S. House of Representatives group said in a federal court filing.
The filing Friday in San Francisco's U.S. District Court comes in a lesbian federal employee's lawsuit that claims the government wrongly denied health insurance coverage to her same-sex spouse. Karen Golinski says the law under which her spouse was denied benefits — the Defense of Marriage Act — violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
But attorneys representing the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group counter that DOMA is subject to a lower level of court scrutiny because gays and lesbians don't meet the legal criteria for groups who receive heightened protection from discrimination. Under that lower standard, DOMA is constitutional, they argue. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
