|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Legal Focuses |
2012/03/11 10:46
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walter Energy, Inc. between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walter Energy produces and exports metallurgical coal for electric utility and industrial customers in the United States.
The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business and financial prospects, including that: (1) the Company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced the Company’s coal production; (2) the Company’s commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter, at first quarter sales prices, would result in a material adverse effect on Walter Energy’s second-quarter average sales prices and operating results; (3) the Company was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (4), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s business and financial prospects during the Class Period.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Walter Energy common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status.
www.glancylaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Legal Focuses |
2012/02/28 10:21
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of the securities of TranS1 Inc. between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
TranS1 is a medical device company that designs, develops and markets products that implement its proprietary surgical approach to treat degenerative conditions of the spine affecting the lower lumbar region. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and certain of its executive officers misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations and financial performance, including that: (i) the Company was not in compliance with federal healthcare fraud and false claim statutes; (ii) the Company engaged in improper reimbursement practices; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (iv), as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased TranS1 securities between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indianapolis Construction Law Firm - Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP
Legal Focuses |
2012/02/19 09:43
|
As part of our experience representing owners, contractors and design professionals throughout the industry, we have written and negotiated contracts based on industry standard forms (such as the AIA forms) and have also developed custom contract documents for specific clients and projects. Based upon our experience drafting and negotiating contract documents, as well as our advice and representation of clients in construction disputes, we know what works in a contract and what does not.
* We know contracts: We routinely draft and negotiate design and construction contracts for large, complex projects.
* We know construction: We know the industry, the terminology, the technology and procedures, the economics and accounting, as well as the law and the potential pitfalls for disputes.
* We know contractors: Having represented contractors of all sizes and specialties for decades, we know how they work; we know how they plan, estimate and schedule jobs; we know their management, accounting and claims procedures; and we know what is important to them and what is not in contract negotiations and in the resolution of claims and disputes.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law has expertise in all areas of construction law and their construction attorneys are dedicated to finding the best solution their construction industry clients. With much experience working with small, family-owned contractors, to some of the biggest general contractors in the Indianapolis area, Riley Bennett & Egloff Law knows what works. Visit www.rbelaw.com to see more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Shuman Law Firm Announces Class Action
Legal Focuses |
2012/02/11 10:15
|
The Shuman Law Firm today announced that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Molycorp, Inc. between March 9, 2011 and November 10, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.
The complaint alleges that Molycorp and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts during the Class Period: (a) Molycorp's development and expansion of the Mountain Pass mine was not progressing on schedule and would not allow the company to reach rare earth oxide production rates at the end of calendar 2012 and 2013; and (b) end users had been reducing demand for the company's products as prices for rare earth elements increased.
On November 10, 2011, the Company reported disappointing third quarter 2011 revenues and earnings results below analysts' estimates and announced a reduction in Mountain Pass production guidance for the fourth quarter of 2011 due to expected equipment downtime relating to Mountain Pass engineering and expansion issues. The Company's stock price fell from $38.70 per share on November 10, 2011 to $33.45 per share on November 11, 2011, or approximately 13.6%.
If you purchased Molycorp common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class no later than April 3, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Legal Focuses |
2012/01/18 05:09
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the 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 Chemed and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Chemed, through its subsidiaries, provides hospice care and repair and cleaning services in the United States. The Company operates in two segments: VITAS and Roto-Rooter.
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: (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) 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; (d) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (e) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (f) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
On November 16, 2011, a Bloomberg article entitled “Whistleblower Accuses Chemed Unit of Medicare HMO Conspiracy” disclosed that a former VITAS manager had accused Chemed of defrauding the federal government by conspiring with health insurers to enroll Medicare patients who were not dying into hospice. The article also discussed a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into fraudulent conduct by VITAS. In response to these announcements, shares of the Company’s stock fell $6.87 per share, or 11%, to close at $50.65 per share on November 16, 2011.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than March 12, 2012.
A “lead plaintiff” is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Chemed shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.
Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” in each of the last nine years.
You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(877) 779-1414
www.bernlieb.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
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
