|
|
|
Court sets aside class-action suit by Costco women
Court News |
2011/09/22 03:45
|
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Walmart ruling, a federal appeals court set aside - but did not dismiss - a class-action suit by more than 700 women who accused discount retailer Costco of using an "old-boys' network" to bypass them for promotions.
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled in 2007 that the women had presented enough evidence of a "common culture" at Costco to proceed with a single nationwide suit against the company, rather than file individual claims.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision Friday, relying in part on the Supreme Court's ruling in June dismissing a class action against Walmart by as many as 1.5 million female employees. The high court said the women had failed to show a company-wide policy that allegedly led to gender-based disparities in pay and promotions.
Likewise, the appeals court said, the Costco plaintiffs have not yet shown that they have enough in common to justify a class action.
The court said opposing expert witnesses disagreed about a central issue - whether the company promoted women less often than men in all regions or only a few - and said U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel should have resolved the dispute before letting the case proceed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reinstates $675,000 damages for downloading
Court News |
2011/09/21 23:45
|
A federal appeals court has reinstated a $675,000 judgment against a Boston University student who illegally downloaded and shared songs on the Internet.
In 2009, a jury in Boston awarded $675,000 to the Recording Industry Association of America, representing four record labels, in a lawsuit filed against Joel Tenenbaum.
A judge later reduced the award to $67,500, finding the original penalty "unconstitutionally excessive."
In his appeal, Tenenbaum sought to overturn the penalty. But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the full award in a ruling Friday.
Tenenbaum's lawyers argue that federal copyright laws and the Digital Theft Deterrence Act were not meant to target consumers. Lawyers representing the recording industry argue that the economic impact of illegal downloading is much greater than the sharing of one song. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Law Firm of Levi & Korsinsky Notifies Investors
Legal Focuses |
2011/09/21 23:44
|
Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division on behalf of purchasers of Penson Worldwide, Inc. common stock from February 20, 2011 through August 4, 2011.
Prior to and during the Class Period, Penson derived a material part of its revenue and income from interest it received on margin loans to customers for which its customers pledged collateral in return for such loans.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding and concealed from investors that, by at least the end of 2010, a) the Company had approximately $96-97 million in receivables ("Nonaccrual Receivables") of which approximately $43 million were collateralized by illiquid securities and therefore unlikely to be collected; b) the Company's Nonaccrual Receivables were materially overstated and should have been written down at least by the end of 2010; c) as a result, the Company's reported income and EBITDA were materially overstated; and d) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
If you are a member of the class and suffered a loss in Penson stock, you have until October 24, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information about your rights, contact Joseph Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit http://www.zlk.com/penson-worldwide-pnsn.html.
Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud and represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder litigation. For more information, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed below. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLPJoseph Levi, Esq.Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Filed Against Former, Current A&P Execs
Court News |
2011/09/20 23:46
|
A class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Inc. (A&P) for the period between July 23, 2009, and Dec. 10, 2010. The complaint, filed Sept. 9 by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, Philadelphia and Atlanta, claims that some former and current A&P executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A&P itself wasn’t named as a defendant in the action because it filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2010.
Those named in the action are former Executive Chairman and CEO Christian Haub, former CEO and President Eric Claus, former CFO and Treasurer Brenda Galgano, Vice Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer Andreas Guldin, former CEO and President Ron Marshall, and current CEO and President Sam Martin.
The complaint alleges that during the period mentioned above, the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the class action alleges that the executives failed to reveal that A&P was facing increased low-cost competition from retailers such as Walmart and Target, which negatively affected its business and financial condition; that the Pathmark acquisition was a “complete disaster” for the company, as Pathmark’s operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to investors; that A&P wasn’t operating according to internal expectations and couldn’t achieve the guidance endorsed by the defendants; and that, as a result of these factors, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company, its operations and prospects.
The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of A&P securities during the period noted above. Those who are member of this class can view a copy of the complaint or join the class action online at www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aandp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, Encore Capital Group
Legal Focuses |
2011/09/14 10:22
|
United States District Judge P. Kevin Castel denies Encore Capital Group, Inc., MRC Receivables Corporation and Midland Credit Management, Inc., joint motion to dismiss all allegations in New York class action lawsuit (Case 1:10-cv-05868-PKC) filed by Weisberg & Meyers, LLC, Attorneys for Consumers.
New York, New York (PRWEB) September 14, 2011 A class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:10-cv-05868-PKC) by Weisberg & Meyers, LLC, Attorneys for Consumers, continues to move forward after a joint motion to dismiss filed by defendants Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, Encore Capital Group, MRC Receivables Corporation and Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) was denied by United States District Judge P. Kevin Castel for 3 out of 4 alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Judge’s order (Case 1:10-cv-05868-PKC Document 38) refused to dismiss the lawsuit’s allegation that defendants Encore and subsidiaries MRC and MCM could be held vicariously liable for potential FDCPA violations in a collection letter sent by Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, an affiliated collection law firm that is part of Encore Capital Group’s debt collection network.The original class action complaint, filed in November 2010, alleges a mailed communication plaintiff received from “Law Offices of Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP” contained multiple FDCPA violations. Plaintiff’s consumer account was originally purchased from Citibank by Encore Capital Group, along with countless others, as part of a consumer accounts portfolio. According to the communication and court documents, the law firm was attempting to collect the debt, now owned by Midland Credit, with an offer of a 50% off “Tax Season Special Discount” to settle the debt in full. The mailed communication and thousands exactly like it, also allegedly falsely represented the creditor as “Midland Credit” rather than “MRC Receivables”, and used the prefix “Law Firm Of” in lieu of the firm’s legal name “Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP”, both potential Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations. Judge Castel’s order declined to dismiss these allegations against the defendants. According to the allegations in the complaint, after a debt portfolio is purchased by Encore Capital Group, MRC Receivables Management takes title and a “proprietary consumer level collectability analysis” is performed to determine those accounts which are the most viable for collection post purchase. Midland Credit Management is responsible for managing and servicing the collection of the debts owned by MRC and other Encore debt owning subsidiaries as part of the agreement between MRC, Midland and Encore, the complaint alleges. According to the complaint, an outsourced legal collections channel comprised of more than 75 vendor relationships with collection law firms is used to collect debts where allegedly the debtor can pay but is unwilling to do so. The complaint further alleges Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP is part of the Encore network of collection law firms and as such, agreed to follow all policies and practices set forth by Encore, MRC and Midland. The class action lawsuit alleges that through the collection efforts of its subsidiaries and network, Encore and its subsidiaries can be held vicariously liable for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Encore, MRC Receivables and Midland Credit Management filed a joint motion to dismiss claiming they are not liable for alleged violations. The Judge’s order permits the plaintiff’s claim of alleged liability for Encore, MRC and Midland Credit to proceed despite their motion to dismiss. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons located in Connecticut, New York and Vermont who, within one year before the date of the original complaint, received a letter from “Law Offices of Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP” identifying “Citibank/Associates” as the original creditor and “Midland Credit” as the creditor. Encore Capital Group, Inc. is the largest publicly traded debt buyer (by revenue) in the United States according to Wikipedia and industry research. Encore purchases charged off consumer receivables portfolios for pennies on the dollar and according to a presentation available for potential investors on Encore’s website, has acquired 36 million charged off or in default consumer accounts since inception, comprised mostly of unsecured credit card accounts Encore employs and manages a network of complex operational channels which has 10 known subsidiaries including MRC Receivables Management, and Midland Credit Management, and a network of collection law firms including Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, to maximize debt collection efforts to the fullest extent possible. About Weisberg & Meyers, LLC, Attorneys for Consumers
Weisberg & Meyers LLC, Attorneys for Consumers, is a nationally recognized consumer law firm, has attorneys licensed to practice in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington, and works with attorneys throughout the country to protect the rights of aggrieved consumers. The Firm’s diverse practice includes claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as well as violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Truth In Lending Act (TILA), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Consumer Leasing Act, Credit Repair Organizations Act, (CROA) and State Unfair and Deceptive Practices Acts (UDAP’s). The Firm also offers Debt Settlement services, prosecutes Class Action Lawsuits, and handles Breach of Warranty, Lemon Law and Consumer Fraud Claims.
### Marshall Meyers
Weisberg and Meyers, LLC
888-595-9111 111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Investment Fraud Litigation |
|
|
|
|
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo |
|
Legal News RSS Feed
