|
|
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Ebix, Inc.
Securities Class Action |
2011/07/15 22:18
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ebix) announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) between May 6, 2009 through June 30, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").
For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ebix.
Ebix supplies software and electronic commerce solutions to the insurance industry. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's tax provisions did not conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (2) the Company overstated its account receivables; (3) the Company consistently failed to tie customer payments to specific invoices; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 24, 2011, Seeking Alpha published a report ("Report”) accusing the Company of engaging in a number of accounting manipulations, including: (a) manipulating stated organic growth; (b) overstating profit margins; (c) overstating its accounts receivables; (d) manipulating tax liabilities; and (e) inflating cash flows. The Report concluded that the Company’s "problems run deeper than accounting. The EBIX story also comes with multiple auditor resignations, governance abuses, misrepresented organic growth, questionable cash flow and a contentious CEO.” On this news, the Company’s shares plummeted $7.20 per share, or nearly 24%, to close on March 24, 2011, at $22.52 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On June 30, 2011, the media reported that the shareholders of Peak Performance Solutions, Inc. ("Peak”), who sold their business to Ebix, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that Ebix was consistently unable to bill customers properly, tie customer payments to invoices, and provide basic financial data or calculate revenues for Peak. On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.30 or more than 6% and closed at $19.05.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than September 12, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. 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 Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
For more information about the case or to participate online, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ebix or contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BofA Near $8.5B Deal to Settle Big Investors' Claims
Securities Class Action |
2011/06/28 22:24
|
Bank of America Corp. is close to finalizing a deal to pay $8.5 billion to settle claims by a group of investors that the bank sold them poor-quality mortgage-backed securities that went sour when the housing market tanked, according to a person familiar with the settlement talks.
The Charlotte, North Carolina, bank was continuing talks late Tuesday with the group, which includes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Pimco Investment Management, the world's largest bondholder, and Blackrock Financial Management. It is expected to announce an agreement as early as Wednesday, the person said on condition of anonymity because the matter was still developing.
The deal comes eight months after the group fired off a letter to Bank of America demanding that it repurchase $47 billion in mortgages that its Countrywide unit sold to them in the form of bonds. The investors have argued that Countrywide's practice of modifying loans found to have faulty paperwork or those written outside of normal underwriting standards breached signed agreements with the investors. By continuing to service bad loans rather than speeding up foreclosures, the group has claimed that Countrywide ran up servicing fees, enriching itself at the expense of investors. The New York Fed is involved because it took over assets held by American International Group Inc., which faltered under the weight of bad home loans that it insured.
Bank of America, which paid $4 billion for Countrywide in 2008, has dismissed suggestions that its handling of loan modifications and other efforts to prevent foreclosure have violated the terms of the mortgage-backed securities that the investors hold. In November, CEO Brian Moynihan said he was in day-to-day "hand-to-hand combat" with investors' demands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action
Securities Class Action |
2011/06/20 08:18
|
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Longtop Financial Technologies Limited (“Longtop” or the “Company”) on the New York Stock Exchange between October 25, 2007 and May 17, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
If you purchased Longtop securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than July 22, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the litigation.
Longtop shareholders who wish to learn more about the actions and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff may visit Lieff Cabraser’s website at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/securities-investor-fraud/case/473/longtop-financial-technologies-limited-securities-class-litigation or contact Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.
Background on the Longtop Securities Class Litigation
The actions are brought against Longtop and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Longtop, headquartered in Beijing, China, designs, develops, and delivers software solutions and information technology services to the financial services industry in China.
The actions allege that during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented and omitted material information regarding Longtop’s financial condition and prospects. On April 26, 2011, Citron Research issued a report raising serious issues with Longtop’s reported financial results, accounting practices, and operations. In response to the report, the price of Longtop’s shares fell significantly, closing at $17.73 per share on April 27, 2011.
Following the publication of the Citron Research report, Longtop hosted a conference call with investors and analysts during which its senior management denied the allegations in the report. On May 9, 2011, Citron published a second report entitled “Longtop Financial (NYSE:LFT - News) Final Proof of Undisclosed Related Party Transactions.” In response to the report, the price of Longtop shares fell another $1.67 per share, or 8.3 percent, to close at $18.54 on May 9, 2011.
On May 17, 2011, NYSE Regulation, Inc. halted trading in Longtop shares pending an announcement by the Company. Two days later, on May 19, 2011, Longtop issued a press release stating that it would not announce its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2011 results on May 23, 2011 as previously scheduled.
On May 23, 2011, Longtop issued a press release announcing that its independent auditor, Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. (“DTT”), and its Chief Financial Officer, defendant Derek Palaschuk, had resigned. According to the release, Deloitte stated in its resignation letter that it was resigning “as the result of, among other things: (1) the recently identified falsity of the Company's financial records in relation to cash at bank and loan balances (and possibly in sales revenue); (2) the deliberate interference by certain members of Longtop management in DTT's audit process; and (3) the unlawful detention of DTT's audit files. DTT further stated that DTT was no longer able to rely on management's representations in relation to prior period financial reports, that continued reliance should no longer be placed on DTT's audit reports on the previous financial statements, and DTT declined to be associated with any of the Company's financial communications in 2010 and 2011.” In addition, Longtop revealed that the Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced an investigation regarding related matters.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.
Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last eight consecutive years.
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm’s representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP Announce Notice of Class Action
Securities Class Action |
2011/06/20 05:14
|
A federal court certified a nationwide settlement class of individuals and companies that purchased SRAM indirectly from one or more Defendants (the "Settlement Class"). Defendants are corporations that indirectly sold SRAM to customers in the United States. For a full list of the defendants, visit the website below. The case is In Re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:07-md-1819 CW in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
What is the Class Action About?
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of SRAM in violation of antitrust, unfair competition and unjust enrichment laws, resulting in overcharges to customers who indirectly purchased SRAM. Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. The court has not decided who is right. Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and Defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (the "Settling Defendants") have agreed to settle with Plaintiffs; they continue to deny liability, but settled to avoid litigation expense and risk.
Who's Included?
You are a member of the Settlement Class and could get benefits if you indirectly purchased SRAM from one of the Defendants in the United States during the period November 1, 1996 through December 31, 2006. SRAM is a memory part or module that is sold by itself or as a part in electronic devices.
What Does the Settlement Provide?
The Settling Defendants have agreed to pay a total of $15,900,000. Copies of the Settlement Agreements are available at the website below. In 2010, the Court approved settlements with other defendants that total $25,422,000 (the "2010 Settlements"); those settlements are now final and binding on the Settlement Class.
How Will the Money Be Distributed?
The total Settlement Fund from all settlements is $41,322,000. The Settlement Class includes indirect purchasers of SRAM that resold Defendants' SRAM ("Resellers"), as well as indirect purchasers of Defendants' SRAM that purchased it for their own use and not for resale ("End Users"). The Net Settlement Fund (the Settlement Fund minus court-approved costs, attorneys' fees and incentive awards), will be distributed as follows: (1) 36.7% of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to qualified Resellers through a court-approved claims process; and (2) 63.3% of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed via a court-approved cy pres plan to non-profit charities for the benefit of End Users. The cy pres portion of the distribution plan is due to the high cost of processing claims and making direct cash distributions to many thousands of potential claimants relative to the average likely award to those claimants. Under the cy pres plan of distribution, payments will not be made to individual class members; instead, that portion of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to court-approved non-profit charities. Go to the website below to see the distribution plan details or the proposed list of non-profit charities. Unclaimed funds from the Reseller claims process, if any, will be added to the cy pres distribution. Class Counsel will request attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the Settlement Fund, reimbursement of their costs and expenses, and incentive payments for the court-appointed class representatives. The attorneys' fees application shall be filed by August 1, 2011, and will be posted on the case website.
Who Represents You?
The Court has appointed Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP as Class Counsel. You do not have to pay these lawyers to represent you. You may hire your own attorney, if you wish; however, you will be responsible for your own attorney's fees and expenses.
What Are Your Options?
If you do not want to be a part of the Settlement Class or legally bound by the Samsung and Cypress settlements, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. You may not exclude yourself from the 2010 Settlements. To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must do so in writing, postmarked no later than August 25, 2011.
The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing for October 6, 2011 and will consider whether to approve the proposed settlements, distribution plan and requests for attorneys' fees, costs and incentive payments. This date may change without further notice. Any new hearing date or time will be posted on the website below.
You may object to or comment on any part of the proposed settlement. Your objection/comment must be filed with the Court by August 25, 2011. You may also request in writing to speak at the Final Approval Hearing.
If you are a Reseller and want to make a claim, or for more information, you may 1) write to SRAM Indirect Litigation, P.O. Box 8090, San Rafael, CA 94912, 2) call the toll free phone number 1-866-252-7551, or 3) visit the website www.indirectsramcase.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action suit filed against Armtec
Securities Class Action |
2011/06/20 04:19
|
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against infrastructure products maker Armtec Infrastructure Inc. alleging the company broke securities laws when it instituted a dividend, later to cancel it after it became unsupportable by earnings.
The suit filed in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of investors who bought shares between March 30 and June 8 alleges that Armtec should have known when it raised capital in the public market that it did not have sufficient earnings to pay dividends.
"Through this class action, we hope to determine precisely what the defendants knew about Armtec's financial results when Armtec raised more than $50 million from investors," lawyer Jay Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP said in a statement.
Armtec shares plummeted earlier this month after the Ontario-based announced a widening of its first-quarter loss and the planned suspension of the 40 cent per share dividend. The dropped 22 cents or six per cent to $3.43 in early trading Friday on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Class action lawsuits must be certified by a judge in order to proceed. None of the allegations against Armtec have been proven in court.
In a statement issued late Friday, Armtec said it was "confident that there are no grounds for a lawsuit to succeed."
"If, however, this suit proceeds, Armtec will defend it vigorously based on, amongst other things, Armtec's disclosure of the risk factors associated with its business and to the payment of a dividend."
The Guelph-based company, which makes construction materials such as precast concrete and tubing, said business was hurt by an unusually late and wet spring across the country during the quarter and ended up with a payout significantly in excess of free cash flow.
The company said it had to meet certain terms in its credit facilities and meet earnings tests on senior notes to be permitted to pay dividends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
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
