|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Press Release |
2012/02/10 17:31
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. between February 1, 2011 and October 18, 2011, inclusive.
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 plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058. 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/powerwave/. 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 Powerwave and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Powerwave engages in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of wireless solutions for wireless communications networks worldwide.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing a dramatic decline in demand from customers in its North American markets; (ii) that the Company was rapidly burning through its free cash flow as revenues declined and expenses increased; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its operations and earnings.
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.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group wants Supreme Court to save war memorial
Court Watch |
2012/02/09 18:10
|
Supporters of a war memorial cross deemed unconstitutional last year by a federal court plan to ask the Supreme Court to reverse the decision, amid a growing fight nationwide over the use of religious symbols to honor fallen troops.
A nonprofit legal firm, Liberty Institute in Dallas, planned to file its petition Thursday to preserve the 43-foot monument on federal land atop San Diego's Mt. Soledad — the same day the group called on combat veterans and supporters to rally at the picturesque site overlooking the Pacific Ocean in the suburb of La Jolla.
The Supreme Court has signaled a greater willingness to allow religious symbols on public land, and the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last month that writes into law the propriety of displaying such markers at war memorials.
Last year's ruling by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals capped two decades of legal challenges over the 1954 cross that became a memorial to Korean War veterans.
A number of other military memorials on public lands across the country have been challenged in recent years by civil liberty activists and atheists who say they violate the separation between church and state. The Supreme Court in 2010 refused to order the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home atop a remote rocky outcropping in California's Mojave Desert. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BofA investor lawsuit wins class-action status
Court Issues |
2012/02/08 17:43
|
Investors suing Bank of America Corp won class-action status for their lawsuit accusing the bank of fraudulently misleading them about the 2008 takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co and the size of Merrill's losses and bonus payouts.
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel in Manhattan on Monday rejected the second-largest U.S. bank's argument that the investors could not prove they suffered losses by relying on materially misleading statements or omissions.
Among the other defendants who were also sued and opposed class certification were former Bank of America Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis, former Merrill Chief Executive John Thain, former Bank of America Chief Financial Officer Joe Price, and Bank of America's board of directors.
Lewis had won initial praise for saving Merrill from possible collapse when he agreed to buy it on September 15, 2008, the day Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc went bankrupt.
But investors later faulted the bank for not disclosing the scope of Merrill's soaring losses, which reached $15.84 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, before December 2008 shareholder votes on the merger. They also objected to Merrill's having paid $3.6 billion of bonuses despite the losses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Experts: Marriage ban's path to high court unclear
Legal Network |
2012/02/08 17:43
|
Conservative critics like to point out that the federal appeals court that just declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional has its decisions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court more often than other judicial circuits, a record that could prove predictive if the high court agrees to review the gay marriage case on appeal.
Yet legal experts seemed to think the panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals struck down the voter-approved ban on Tuesday purposefully served up its 2-1 opinion in a narrow way and seasoned it with established holdings so the Supreme Court would be less tempted to bite.
The appeals court not only limited the scope of its decision to California, even though the 9th Circuit also has jurisdiction in eight other western states, but relied on the Supreme Court's own 1996 decision overturning a Colorado measure that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people to argue that the voter-approved Proposition 8 violated the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians.
That approach makes it much less likely the high court would find it necessary to step in, as it might have if the 9th Circuit panel had concluded that any state laws or amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal treatment, several analysts said. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
