|
|
|
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
Areas of Focus |
2011/12/15 19:33
|
Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired GLG Life Tech Corporation securities on the NASDAQ between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011 inclusive.
A copy of the complaint can be viewed on the firm’s website at http://www.faruqilaw.com/GLG
GLG and certain of its officers are charged with issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to inform investors: (1) the truth surrounding GLG’s production issues; (2) the poor consumer response to the Company’s AN0C and stevia products; and (3) that the Company would not meet its February 1, 2011 earnings projections.
On October 6, 2011, the Company disclosed for the first time a negative business outlook associated with its stevia and AN0C products, causing GLG stock to drop 42% by the close of business. Subsequently, on November 14, 2011, GLG announced disappointing financial results for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2011 and refused to provide any further guidance on future performance.
Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all other investors who purchased or acquired GLG securities on the NASDAQ between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011, excluding defendants and their affiliates. Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a national securities law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions and actions involving corporate fraud.
If you wish to obtain information concerning joining this action, you can do so under the “Join Lawsuit” section of our website or by clicking here: http://www.faruqilaw.com/GLG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Throng of Occupy protesters appear in NY courts
Areas of Focus |
2011/12/14 21:00
|
Nearly 200 people arrested during Occupy Wall Street-related protests were in New York courtrooms hundreds of miles apart Wednesday, answering charges that stemmed from a march on the Brooklyn Bridge and a demonstration in a Rochester park.
In Manhattan, arraignments were under way for 166 people, most of them among the more than 700 picked up in an Oct. 1 march that marked the biggest mass arrest of the New York protest so far. Hundreds of other protesters arrested on the bridge and during other Occupy demonstrations in the city have already been to court, but this week's numbers are some of the biggest.
Meanwhile, 28 Occupy Wall Street supporters were set to appear in a Rochester court on charges of trespassing by staying in a park past its curfew.
Some wearing their Occupy Wall Street allegiance on buttons — and in one case, a hand-painted oxford shirt — lined hallways and an overflow courtroom in a Manhattan courthouse that handles low-level offenses. Many had been arrested on the bridge after police said protesters ignored warnings not to leave a pedestrian path and go onto the roadway.
The demonstrators were generally charged with disorderly conduct and blocking traffic, both violations. Many took a judge's offer Wednesday to get their cases dismissed if they avoid getting arrested again for six months. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
City Council in Pa. capital again seeks bankruptcy
Areas of Focus |
2011/12/13 18:38
|
The City Council has appealed a judge's decision to throw out the bankruptcy petition of Pennsylvania's debt-choked capital city, its attorney said.
The appeal was filed Saturday in federal court, City Council attorney Mark Schwartz said in an email.
Last month, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled that Harrisburg may not seek bankruptcy protection, calling such a filing illegal. That ruling cleared the way for the state to take over the city.
The judge said the city had been legally barred by a separate state law, signed June 30 by Gov. Tom Corbett, from seeking bankruptcy protection and, in any case, had no authority to go over the mayor's head to file it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to hear suit over Cheney event arrest
Areas of Focus |
2011/12/05 18:13
|
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear an appeal from Secret Service agents who say they should be shielded from a lawsuit over their arrest of a Colorado man who confronted Vice President Dick Cheney.
The justices will review a federal appeals court decision to allow Steven Howards of Golden, Colo., to pursue his claim that the arrest violated his free speech rights. Howards was detained by Cheney's security detail in 2006 after he told Cheney of his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Howards also touched Cheney on the shoulder, then denied doing so under questioning. Appellate judges in Denver said the inconsistency gave the agents reason to arrest Howards.
Even so, the appeals court said Howards could sue the agents for violating his rights — an unusual twist that the agents and the Obama administration said conflicts with other appeals court decisions and previous high court rulings in similar cases.
Justice Elena Kagan is not taking part in the case, probably because she worked on it while serving in the Justice Department. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to review fine for mercury storage
Areas of Focus |
2011/11/28 17:23
|
The Supreme Court will consider throwing out an $18 million penalty against Texas-based Southern Union Co. for illegally storing mercury at a rundown building in Rhode Island.
The justices said Monday they will hear the natural gas company's appeal of the criminal penalty that was imposed by a federal judge and upheld by an appeals court.
What makes the case unusual is that the company is challenging the size of the penalty under a line of Supreme Court cases concerning prison sentences.
Southern Union had used the building in Pawtucket to store outdated mercury-sealed gas regulators that it removed from customers' homes. The mercury was initially removed and shipped to a recycling center. But when that work stopped, the regulators and loose mercury were left to accumulate inside the building. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Court of Canada Certifies Class Action
Areas of Focus |
2011/11/26 17:23
|
Branch MacMaster LLP and Hordo Bennett Mounteer LLP report that the Federal Court of Canada has certified the BIM Class Action against Business in Motion International Corporation and Alan Kippax. By order dated November 10, 2011 , Mr. Justice Rennie of the Federal Court officially certified the action on behalf of the national class, as represented by the Plaintiff, Mr. Mark Cuzzetto .
The lawsuit was initiated in May, 2010 against BIM and its principal, Alan Kippax. BIM operated a plan called the "Time Leverage System", recruiting representatives to sell "Perpetual Motion Products". The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have been engaged in the operation of an unlawful multi-level marketing scheme and/or pyramid scheme contrary to the Competition Act. The class members seek damages for the money they paid to the Defendants.
Persons who have purchased the product and who wish to participate in the action do not need to do anything at this time. Persons who do not want to participate in the action must opt out by January 18, 2012 by completing the online form on the website.
Bim CLASS ACTION
DID YOU PURCHASE A PERPETUAL MOTION PRODUCT FROM OR THROUGH BUSINESS IN MOTION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION? IF SO, PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.
WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?
A class action lawsuit has been certified in the Federal Court of Canada claiming that Business in Motion International Corporation and Alex Kippax ("BIM") ran an illegal pyramid scheme and an illegal multi-level marketing scheme. A copy of the Statement of Claim and Order certifying the action as a class proceeding can be found at www.BIMclassaction.com.
HOW WILL THE LAWSUIT PROCEED?
A trial will be held to determine the common issues in the action. If these issues are determine in favor of the class members, there might still need to be individual hearings to determine the entitlement of each class member to a refund.
WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO PARTICIPATE?
There is nothing you have to do right now. Unless you opt out, you will be bound by the result of the common issues trial. However, in order to make sure you are notified of any important developments in the action, we recommend you register on our website at www.BIMclassaction.com.
WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS LAWSUIT?
If you do not want to be part of the class action, you must complete the online form at www.BIMclassaction.com. If you do not have access to the internet, please contact Ulla Herlev at Branch MacMaster LLP. You must complete the online form by no later than January 18, 2012 .
DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING?
You will only need to pay legal fees if the action is successful in obtaining you a refund of some of the monies you paid. Those legal fees will be paid directly from the refund you receive. You will not need to pay any legal fees out of your own pocket.
Any fee paid to the lawyers must be approved by the Court as being fair and reasonable. The fee agreement entered into by the representative plaintiff provides for the lawyers to be paid up to 1/3 of any amounts recovered or any benefit obtained from the class action. If and when this occurs, the lawyers will apply to Court for approval of that percentage or some lesser amount.
If the class action is unsuccessful at the common issues trial, you will not pay any legal fees.
WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?
The lawyers for the class are:
BRANCH MACMASTER LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
1410 - 777 Hornby Street
Vancouver , BC V6Z 1S4
HORDO BENNETT MOUNTEER LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
1400 - 128 West Pender St.
Vancouver , BC V6B 1R8
Mark Cuzzetto (the representative plaintiff) has been appointed by the Court to instruct the lawyers for the common issues stage. The lawyers must act in the interest of all class members. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY top court clears probe of inflated appraisals
Areas of Focus |
2011/11/23 17:49
|
New York's top court has cleared the state attorney general to pursue allegations that First American Corp. and subsidiary eAppraiseIT inflated property appraisals under pressure from client Washington Mutual.
The Court of Appeals says federal regulations do not pre-empt state claims alleging fraud and violations of real estate appraisal rules.
Then-Attorney General Andrew Cuomo brought the 2007 civil suit alleging the practice contributed to the national subprime mortgage crisis.
Washington Mutual collapsed in 2008 and became the nation's largest bank failure ever.
Six top court judges ruled that Congress envisioned "a robust partnership with the states" in aiming to prevent real estate appraisal abuse.
In a dissent, Judge Susan Read says the suit challenges a bank's federally regulated mortgage practices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
