|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Legal Focuses |
2011/09/26 09:44
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
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 plaintiffs’ 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/allostherapeutics. 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 Allos and its Board of Directors (the “Board”) with breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty under state law and the Board and AMAG with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Allos is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the development and commercialization of anti-cancer therapeutics.
The action arises from Allos and AMAG’s July 20, 2011 announcement that Allos had entered into a definitive merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) under which Allos would be acquired by AMAG in a transaction valued at approximately $260 million (the “Proposed Acquisition”). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Allos stockholders will receive a fixed ratio of 0.1282 shares of AMAG common stock for each share of Allos common stock held. The deal values Allos stock at $2.44 a share using AMAG’s prior closing price of $19.07. The complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition significantly undervalues Allos, as Allos shares traded as high as $4.21 as recently as January 12, 2011, and after the announcement of the Proposed Acquisition the price of AMAG common stock has fallen to $13.58 per share, giving the deal a real value of just $1.74 per Allos share.
The complaint further alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Acquisition, on August 22, 2011, defendants issued a materially false and misleading Preliminary Joint Proxy/Prospectus on Form S-4 (the “Proxy”). The Proxy, which recommends that Allos shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material information about the unfair sales process for the Company, conflicts of interest that corrupted the sales process, the unfair consideration offered in the Proposed Acquisition, and the actual intrinsic value of the Company on a stand-alone basis and as a merger partner for AMAG, in contravention of §§14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and/or defendants’ fiduciary duty of disclosure under state law.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all shareholders of Allos who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG (the “Class”). The plaintiffs are 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Announces Class Action
Legal Focuses |
2011/08/30 09:30
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Legal Focuses |
2011/08/23 10:28
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against SinoTech Energy Limited in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) of SinoTech pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”) on November 3, 2010, including open-market purchasers of SinoTech ADSs between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The Complaint charges SinoTech, certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. SinoTech provides enhanced oil recovery services to oil companies in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that certain representations made in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially inaccurate. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company’s reported sales and revenues were materially inaccurate, because the nature, size and scope of the Company’s business was materially exaggerated.
On August 16, 2011, a research report was published on the Internet questioning SinoTech’s previously issued financial statements and future prospects. The report alleged that: (1) SinoTech’s sole import agent, accounting for over $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, appears to be an empty shell company with no sign of operation, a limited import history and negligible revenue base; (2) the Company’s only chemical supplier is an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company’s five largest subcontracting customers, which provide the vast majority of SinoTech’s revenues, appear to be shell companies with 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; and (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions.
On this news, ADSs of SinoTech declined more than 40%, to close on August 16, 2011, at $2.35 per share. Thereafter, NASDAQ halted trading of the Company’s stock.
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 ADSs of SinoTech between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until October 18, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.
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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.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
