|
|
|
2 Attorneys From Girard Gibbs Selected to Best Lawyers in America 2012
Press Release |
2011/09/26 09:45
|
Girard Gibbs LLP (www.GirardGibbs.com) announced today that two attorneys in the firm’s San Francisco office were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2012 (Copyright 2011 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, S.C.). Girard Gibbs’ Daniel Girard was honored for his work in class action and securities litigation, and Eric Gibbs was recognized for his work in class action litigation.
Daniel Girard has served as lead counsel in a wide range of cases, including class actions arising under the securities, financial services, civil rights and telecommunications laws. He serves as outside counsel to the California State Teachers Retirement System and the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System. His current work includes serving as lead counsel for investors in litigation against several major banks, including multi-district proceedings against UBS AG in connection with the Lehman Brothers collapse. He also represents individual and corporate clients in international arbitration proceedings.
Mr. Girard was appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist to the United States Judicial Conference Committee on Civil Rules in 2004. He was reappointed to a second three-year term by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2007. He is a member of the American Law Institute, and serves on the Advisory Board of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, a national, non-partisan organization dedicated to improving the process and culture of the civil justice system.
Mr. Girard was selected for inclusion in Northern California Super Lawyers from 2007 through 2011, and has earned an AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, recognizing him in the highest class of attorneys for professional ethics and legal skills. 2011 is the first year he is listed in The Best Lawyers in America.
Eric Gibbs is a founding partner at Girard Gibbs and specializes in the prosecution of consumer and employment class actions. Mr. Gibbs serves as court-appointed lead counsel, class counsel and liaison counsel in various class and collective actions in federal court and in arbitration throughout the United States. His experience in complex litigation extends to matters involving defective products, false advertising, unfair competition, privacy rights, employment misclassification and wage and hour issues.
Mr. Gibbs is the immediate past co-chair of American Association for Justice’s Class Action Litigation Group and past editor of the group’s Quarterly Newsletter; he also serves on the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys of California and is a member of Public Justice’s Class Action Preservation Project Committee.
Mr. Gibbs was selected for inclusion in Northern California Super Lawyers in 2010 and 2011, and has earned an AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, recognizing him in the highest class for professional ethics and legal skills. Mr. Gibbs frequently speaks on current issues concerning class action litigation. 2011 is the first year he is listed in The Best Lawyers in America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Press Release |
2011/09/26 09:45
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder class action hits Leighton
Press Release |
2011/09/01 09:47
|
Shareholders set to take legal action against Leighton over alleged failures to properly report a $907 million turnaround in financial performance.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn on Thursday said it intended to launch a class action against the company, alleging Leighton breached continuous disclosure obligations as set out in the Corporations Act.
On April 11 this year, the Leighton announced it was expecting to post a loss of $427 million for the 2010/11 financial year, a turnaround from a $480 million profit in 2009/10.
The announcement came after a review of its operations, which led to a $282 million drop in profit from its desalination plant project at Wonthaggi in Victoria, a before-tax loss of $430 million on the Brisbane Airport Link and a $295 million write-down on its equity in the Middle East-focused Habtoor Leighton Group.
Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson said Leighton should have told the market about those write-downs by November 2, 2010, or, at the very latest, February 14 this year.
'Shareholders expect a company like Leighton to have proper risk management and internal reporting systems to ensure timely announcements are made when there are difficulties,' Mr Watson said.
Maurice Blackburn says it believes Leighton was seeking approval for design changes on the Brisbane Airport Link because of expected delays as early as April 2009.
Leighton also advised the market that construction of the Victorian desalination plant was on time at least five times between November 2010 and March 2011, Maurice Blackburn alleges.
In response to a query from the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) several days after its announcement of the losses, Leighton said it informed the market of its expected losses as soon as it was aware of them.
'At all times, the company has been mindful of its continuous disclosure obligations,' Leighton secretary Ashley Moir said on April 18.
Last week, the Leightonboard terminated the contract of chief executive David Stewart, who took over from long-time chief executive Wal King in January.
That followed chairman David Mortimer's decision to depart the Leighton board a day earlier. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Announces Class Action
Press Release |
2011/08/30 09:31
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder Class Action Filed Against WebMD Health Corp.
Press Release |
2011/08/29 09:30
|
The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WebMD Health Corp., who purchased or otherwise acquired WebMD securities between February 23, 2011 and July 15, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the Complaint or join this class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.
Members of the class may, not later than October 3, 2011, move the Court to serve 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported 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.
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 Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the class action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
