|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Press Release |
2011/08/23 10:31
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal court rejects Houston cop killer's appeal
Court News |
2011/08/23 04:32
|
A federal appeals court has rejected an appeal from the convicted killer of an off-duty Houston police officer arguing that two jurors at his capital murder trial in 1999 were improperly rejected by prosecutors because they were black.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholds a ruling from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in the case of 32-year-old Anthony Haynes, who is black. He was condemned to death for the 1998 shooting death of Houston Police Sgt. Kent Kincaid, who was white.
Acting on an appeal from the Texas attorney general's office, the U.S. Supreme Court had ordered the 5th Circuit to reconsider its 2009 decision that Haynes get a new trial or be released from death row. The Supreme Court had in 1986 found it unconstitutional to dismiss a juror solely because of race, but the justices said the 5th Circuit panel misinterpreted its rulings when it decided Haynes deserved a new trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Berman DeValerio Announces Securities Class Action
Press Release |
2011/08/22 10:32
|
The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action lawsuit today against Miller Energy Resources, Inc.
The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of common stock from December 16, 2009 through and including August 1, 2011 (the “Class Period”).
Berman DeValerio (www.bermandevalerio.com) brought the complaint against the Company and certain of its directors and officers (the “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The case is filed as 3:11-cv-00397.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as the lead plaintiff are required to file a motion for appointment with the court no later than October 11, 2011.
The claims arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for class period purchasers.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Miller, an oil and gas exploration, production and drilling firm, and the other Defendants made material false statements about Miller’s financial results and about the valuation of certain oil-and-gas-producing assets it acquired in Alaska. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants: (1) issued false and misleading consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and cash flows; (2) failed to properly classify royalty expenses; (3) failed to properly record sufficient compensation expense on equity awards; (4) did not properly calculate the liability for derivative instruments; (5) did not properly consolidate entities under its control; and (6) improperly reported the value of certain oil and gas assets that it acquired in Alaska. As a result of these problems, the Company was required to restate its financial results. Over a series of almost daily disclosures occurring on July 28, 2011, July 29, 2011 and August 1, 2011, Miller’s stock price dropped from $7.04 per share on July 27, 2011 to a close of $3.37 per share on August 2, 2011, a total drop of $3.67 or 52%.
To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio at (800) 516-9926.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 11, 2011, request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. In addition, you may contact the attorneys at Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interests in the case. Please note: you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member.
Berman DeValerio is a national law firm representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers, chiefly for violations of securities and antitrust laws. The firm has 49 lawyers in Boston, San Francisco and South Florida.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EEOC sues, argues man on treatment should be hired
Topics in Legal News |
2011/08/19 09:27
|
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued a national insurance company, contending the firm violated federal law by refusing to hire a North Carolina man after he disclosed he was participating in a methadone treatment program for a drug addiction.
The suit was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Raleigh against United Insurance Co. of America, said EEOC attorney Lynette Barnes.
The complaint argues the firm violated federal disability discrimination law by refusing to hire Craig Burns, 30, who applied for a job in the firm's Raleigh office in December of 2009. The firm made a conditional offer of employment to Burns the following month, depending upon his passing a drug test, the complaint said.
The test showed the presence of methadone in his system, so Burns submitted a letter to the firm from his treatment provider saying he was participating in a supervised methadone treatment program and taking legally prescribed medication as part of the treatment, the complaint said.
Upon receiving this information, United Insurance notified Barnes he was not eligible to be hired and withdrew the employment offer, the complaint said.
Barnes said the action violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on their disabilities. A recovering drug addict is covered under the act, the attorney said in an interview.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACLU sues feds for shackling immigrant detainees
Court Watch |
2011/08/19 09:00
|
The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have filed a lawsuit in San Francisco federal court seeking to stop a practice in which alleged illegal immigrants are shackled at the feet, waist and wrists while appearing in immigration court.
The groups allege in the suit filed Monday that a blanket policy that allows the immigrants to remain chained for up to 12 hours the day they're due in court violates constitutional bans against cruel and unusual punishment.
According to the lawsuit, the overwhelming majority of prisoners who show up in immigration courts have no violent criminal history. The lawsuit seeks to compel the Department of Homeland Security to make individual determinations about shackling rather than have a blanket policy. DHS officials declined to comment Wednesday.
The lawsuit applies only to immigrants appearing in San Francisco immigration courts. But attorneys who filed the lawsuit said Wednesday that they hope it prompts changes to the system in other cities.
"We'd like to convince them to follow their own policy and at least add some humanity to it and recognize it's a painful and hurtful thing to shackle people like that," said Paul Chavez, senior attorney for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, one of the groups who filed the lawsuit.
The groups allege that shackling everyone at an immigration hearing amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The lawsuit seeks class action status to represent prisoners transported to and appearing in immigration court in shackles in San Francisco.
|
|
|
|
|