|
|
|
Kansas court system works to improve efficiency
Topics in Legal News |
2011/06/23 22:30
|
Judges and court workers have completed the data-collection part of a study aimed at making Kansas' court system more efficient.
The Wichita Eagle reported that the data will be analyzed by the National Center for State Courts. That national nonprofit group works to improve the justice system and lobbies on behalf of courts at the federal level.
The results of the $200,000 consultant study of how judges and other court workers spend their time will go to a panel that will recommend changes if they are needed.
Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Lawton Nuss said the panel also is gathering public input on ways to improve the courts. The two initiatives are called "Project Pegasus," after the winged horse in Greek mythology.
The goal is to prevent situations like last year when courts were closed four days.
"When our budget is cut or when we don't have enough money, it is our people who suffer, they're the ones who have to get sent home," Nuss told members of the Wichita Pachyderm Club, a Republican group, this past week. "Unfortunately that also comes at the expense of Kansas citizens, because when we have no money and we have to close the courts, the citizens no longer have access to justice."
Nuss said most of the consultant study is being paid for mostly from salary and benefit savings accrued after appellate Judge Jerry Elliott died in April of last year and former Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Davis died last August.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules against Anna Nicole Smith's estate
Legal Business |
2011/06/22 22:30
|
The Supreme Court has ruled against the estate of Anna Nicole Smith in its quest to capture some of the $1.6 billion estate left behind by her late Texas billionaire husband.
The high court on Thursday ruled that a bankruptcy court's decision to give the now-deceased Playmate $475 million from the estate of oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall was decided incorrectly.
Smith and Marshall were wed in 1994, and he died the next year.
His will left his estate to his son, E. Pierce Marshall, and nothing to Smith. A California bankruptcy court awarded Smith part of the estate, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal said that a bankruptcy court could not make a decision on an issue outside of bankruptcy law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chandler steps down as head of Del. Chancery Court
Topics in Legal News |
2011/06/20 08:25
|
William Chandler III never realized his young man's dream of becoming a university professor, yet he has managed to pass on plenty of lessons to students of American law and business.
Chandler, 60, is retiring this week as head of Delaware's Court of Chancery, which rules over corporate law in a state that is the legal home to more than half of all publicly traded U.S. companies, including about two-thirds of the Fortune 500.
Chandler's decision to join a Silicon Valley-based law firm, where he will focus on advising corporate clients and working behind the scenes on litigation strategy, comes after 26 years on the bench, including eight years as a vice chancellor on the five-member court and 14 as chancellor.
But Chandler, who also served as a Superior Court judge before being appointed a vice chancellor, never envisioned himself wearing a black robe.
After obtaining his law degree from the University of South Carolina and clerking for a federal judge in Wilmington, Chandler went to Yale University law school with his eye on a master's degree and a dream of becoming a professor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP Announce Notice of Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements
Legal Business |
2011/06/20 08:24
|
If You Bought Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Between November 1, 1996 to December 31, 2006, Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements May Affect You
SRAM is used in many computers, smart phones, PDAs and other electronic devices
Para una notificacion en espanol, llamar o visitar nuestro website
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action
Legal Marketing |
2011/06/20 08:24
|
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”) (NYSE:LFT - News) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
