|
|
|
Assange's extradition fight faces long odds
Securities Class Action |
2012/01/31 10:16
|
Julian Assange's long-running battle against extradition comes to a climax at Britain's Supreme Court this week, and legal experts say that the WikiLeaks founder faces long odds.
Assange has already failed twice in his bid to block his extradition to Sweden, where he faces sex crime allegations stemming from a trip there in mid-2010. The two-day hearing which begins Wednesday is the last chance his lawyers have to persuade a British court not to send him to Scandinavia.
"I don't think he'll succeed," said Peter Caldwell, an extradition lawyer familiar with Assange's legal submission.
European arrest warrants are difficult to beat, and Caldwell said that while Assange's case was "well-argued ... it doesn't get beyond the obligation of the U.K. to give effect to European law."
Assange is celebrated by some as a champion of transparency and reviled by others as an enemy of the U.S. government, but the argument before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with his career as an online secret-spiller or even the merits of the Swedish sex allegations — which Assange has always denied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Securities Class Action |
2012/01/30 13:13
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the 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.
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, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld 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/walterenergy/. 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 Walter and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walter, through its consolidated subsidiaries, mines and exports hard coking coal for the global steel industry.
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: (i) that the Company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced Walter’s coal production; (ii) that 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’s average sales prices and operating results during the second quarter; (iii) that Walter was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (iv) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business prospects during the Class Period.
On August 3, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its operating results for its 2011 fiscal second quarter, the period ended June 30, 2011. For the quarter, the Company announced net income of $107.4 million, or $1.71 per diluted common share, significantly less than Wall Street estimates. Then, On September 21, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its attempt to “enhance” its historical statistical disclosure and its revisions to its 2011 second half sales expectations. In response to this announcement, the price of Walter common stock declined from $75.00 per share on September 20, 2011 to $66.25 on September 21, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Walter 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.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit
Securities Class Action |
2012/01/26 12:42
|
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 District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of Collective Brands, Inc. common stock during the period between December 1, 2010 and May 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/collectivebrands/. 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 Collective Brands and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collective Brands is the holding company for three lines of business: Payless ShoeSource (“Payless”), Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (“PLG”), and Collective Licensing. The Company was formerly known as Payless ShoeSource, Inc. and changed its name to Collective Brands in August 2007.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Collective Brands stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $23.44 per share on February 18, 2011.
On May 24, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted earnings per share expected by analysts. The Company further reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless domestic segment, offset by sales growth of 22.5% in PLG. On this news, Collective Brands stock collapsed $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 17%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s inventory level for Payless remained at excessively high levels and aging inventory for its Payless segment was a concern; (b) sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores were significantly worse than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and (c) the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s bloated inventory at significant discounts, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Collective Brands 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.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Securities Class Action |
2012/01/25 09:46
|
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against TranS1 Inc., and certain of its officers. The class action (7:12-cv-00023-F), filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased TranS1 securities during the period between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased TranS1 securities during the Class Period, you have until March 26, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529, toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
TranS1 designs, develops, and markets medical devices to treat degenerative disc disease affecting the lower lumbar region of the spine. The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, TranS1 made false and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was not in compliance with federal healthcare fraud and false claim statutes; (2) the Company engaged in improper reimbursement practices; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hausfeld LLP Files Class Action Suit
Securities Class Action |
2012/01/20 10:12
|
Hausfeld LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of those who sold HearUSA common stock between January 18, 2011 and July 31, 2011, inclusive. The lawsuit, filed January 18, 2012, seeks to pursue remedies against Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc. (“Siemens”) for violations of Sections 10(b), 9(a)(2) and 18(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78i(a)(2), and 78r(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. Siemens is engaged, in part, in the manufacture of hearing products, and HearUSA was involved in the distribution of Siemens’ hearing products. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and is captioned MTB Investment Partners, LP vs. Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc.
The complaint alleges that Siemens engaged in a fraudulent scheme to drive down the price of HearUSA common stock in an attempt to acquire HearUSA’s assets for less than their fair market value by, in part, filing false and misleading statements with the SEC. The result of Siemens’ false and misleading statements, according to the complaint, was to drive down the market price of HearUSA common stock from 90¢/share on January 18, 2011 to 35¢/share on July 28, 2011.
According to the complaint, Siemens made a number of false and/or misleading statements in its public filings which caused HearUSA stock to plummet. These public filings stated that Siemens at no point had the intention to acquire HearUSA, despite the fact that it had been in the advanced stages of a negotiated buyout process for HearUSA. The public filings further stated that Siemens, if it wanted to acquire HearUSA, could do so at no consideration to shareholders because of debts owed to Siemens by HearUSA. The complaint alleges that this assertion misrepresented the status and extent of the debt owed to Siemens by HearUSA and Siemens’ ability to acquire HearUSA pursuant to the credit agreement entered into between the two companies. The complaint alleges that, in making these statements, Siemens effectively told the market that HearUSA stock was worthless, and that the market responded accordingly.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, William Butterfield of Hausfeld LLP at (202)540-7200 or via email at wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.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
