|
|
|
Scott Cole & Associates Announces Update for Class Action
Press Release |
2011/10/07 16:39
|
According to Scott Cole, within days of being hit with a class action lawsuit for failing to offer meal and rest breaks to its California workforce, Guitar Center fired the man who pioneered the lawsuit and allowed its workers to parade the named plaintiff’s final paycheck around the workplace. In immediate reaction to these events, the plaintiff’s attorneys at Scott Cole & Associates amended the Complaint today to allege a wrongful termination and invasion of privacy claim.
“If Guitar Center thinks it can send a message to its workers that standing up for their rights will cost them, this new wrongful termination claim sends a stronger message right back,” says Scott Cole, the principal lawyer on the case. “Firing our client was a big mistake.”
The lawsuit is entitled Pellanda v. Guitar Center, Inc.
Oakland-based Scott Cole & Associates, APC is one of California’s premiere class action law firms and is devoted to representing individuals in employment and consumer rights litigation. For more information about our practice and cases, visit www.scalaw.com or call (510) 891-9800. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Press Release |
2011/09/26 16:47
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Law Firm of Levi & Korsinsky Notifies Investors
Press Release |
2011/09/22 18:52
|
Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division on behalf of purchasers of Penson Worldwide, Inc. common stock from February 20, 2011 through August 4, 2011.
Prior to and during the Class Period, Penson derived a material part of its revenue and income from interest it received on margin loans to customers for which its customers pledged collateral in return for such loans.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding and concealed from investors that, by at least the end of 2010, a) the Company had approximately $96-97 million in receivables ("Nonaccrual Receivables") of which approximately $43 million were collateralized by illiquid securities and therefore unlikely to be collected; b) the Company's Nonaccrual Receivables were materially overstated and should have been written down at least by the end of 2010; c) as a result, the Company's reported income and EBITDA were materially overstated; and d) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
If you are a member of the class and suffered a loss in Penson stock, you have until October 24, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information about your rights, contact Joseph Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit http://www.zlk.com/penson-worldwide-pnsn.html.
Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud and represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder litigation. For more information, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed below. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLPJoseph Levi, Esq.Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Press Release |
2011/08/23 17:36
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
