Add To Favorites
Dyer & Berens LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
Press Release | 2011/10/26 09:47
Dyer & Berens LLP announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of AgFeed Industries, Inc. between March 16, 2009 and August 2, 2011, inclusive. AgFeed is engaged in the animal nutrition and commercial hog producing businesses in China and maintains its principal executive offices in Colorado.

What actions may I take at this time?

If you purchased or acquired shares during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must request appointment by the court no later than December 19, 2011. A "lead plaintiff" works with counsel to direct the litigation and participates in important decisions, including the amount of compensation to accept in settlement of the class action. The lead plaintiffs here will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from their investment in the Company during the Class Period.

What are the allegations in the complaint?

The complaint contains allegations that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically, the defendants misrepresented and concealed from the investing public that, among other things: (i) AgFeed's formula-based analysis for determining accounts receivable and calculating reserves for doubtful accounts did not take into consideration the individual repayment abilities of its customers; (ii) the Company's accounts receivable were materially overvalued and its allowances for doubtful accounts were significantly under-reserved; and (iii) the Company exaggerated its market edge as the combination of overstated assets and understated expenses resulted in an illusion of heightened profitability and Company value. Based upon the foregoing, the complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

About Dyer & Berens LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Dyer & Berens LLP. The firm's extensive experience in securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved investors. For more information about the firm, please visit www.dyerberens.com.


Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Press Release | 2011/10/24 10:43
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of the securities of AgFeed Industries, Inc. between March 16, 2009 and August 2, 2011 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges that AgFeed and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following: (i) AgFeed's collection efforts and credit dealings with its animal nutrition customers were not working because the "formula based analysis" AgFeed relied on in determining accounts receivable and reserves for doubtful accounts was flawed; (ii) allowances for doubtful accounts were undervalued; (iii) accounts were overvalued and bad debts were undervalued, causing reported asset values to be overstated and expenses to be understated; and (iv) as a result, AgFeed exaggerated its market edge creating an illusion of heightened profitability.

On August 2, 2011, AgFeed announced preliminary financial results for the second quarter of 2011 that were well below expectations and that it expected to post a loss of $17 million, as it added $5 million in allowances for its bad debt expenses. Additionally, on August 9, 2011, AgFeed disclosed to the SEC that it would withdraw the Registration Statement for its animal nutrition business.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 19, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.

While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/agfeed/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com.



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.


[PREV] [1] ..[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].. [22] [NEXT]
All
Legal Business
Headline Legal News
Court News
Court Watch
Legal Interview
Topics in Legal News
Attorney News
Press Release
Opinions
Law Blogs
Law Firm News
Legal Marketing
Mexico soccer star Omar Brav..
Newsom signs bill granting U..
Government shutdown nears, c..
Former FBI Director Comey in..
Man is arrested and charged ..
Senate rejects competing bil..
Call of Duty Maker Seeks Dis..
Military lawyers will serve ..
Anthropic to pay authors $1...
Washington, Oregon and Calif..
‘Ketamine Queen’ pleads gu..
US deportation flights hit r..
Federal data website outage ..
Texas GOP Set to Trigger Nat..
Los Angeles school year begi..
Trump’s nominee to oversee ..
Trump administration asks co..


   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
Oregon Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer Eugene. Family Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
 
 
Disclaimer: The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Romeo Media 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 or circumstance. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Lawyer Website Design Company Law Promo