|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Marketing |
2012/03/01 10:18
|
Robbins Geller Rudman amp; Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of CNOOC Limited American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) during the period between January 27, 2011 and September 16, 2011.
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, 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/cnooc/. 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 CNOOC and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CNOOC is China’s biggest offshore state oil company. CNOOC co-owns the Penglai 19-3 (“PL 19-3”) oilfield in northern Bohai Bay with ConocoPhillips China Inc. (“ConocoPhillips”) as its operator.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, CNOOC’s ADSs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of US$270.64 per ADS on April 4, 2011.
On June 4, 2011, an oil spill occurred at the PL 19-3 oilfield. A second spill occurred at the PL 19-3 oilfield on June 17, 2011. The complaint alleges that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips failed to disclose the spills when they occurred. However, despite CNOOC’s attempts to conceal the news, news of the spills began to leak into the market. On July 5, 2011, the State Oceanic Administration (“SOA”), China’s coastal regulator, officially acknowledged the spills had occurred. Thereafter, CNOOC downplayed the extent of the damage done by the oil spills and the impact it would have on CNOOC’s operations. On September 2, 2011, the SOA announced that it had ordered CNOOC and ConocoPhillips to immediately suspend all oil production at the PL 19-3 oilfield. On September 6, 2011, it was announced that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips would establish a Bohai Bay fund to address the environmental impact of the oil spills. On this news, CNOOC’s ADSs declined US$9.39 per ADS on September 6, 2011. Then, on September 18, 2011, it was announced that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips would establish a second Bohai Bay fund. On this news, CNOOC’s ADSs declined another US$6.85 per ADS on September 19, 2011.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company was not in compliance with environmental laws and regulations; (b) as news of the oil spills emerged, the Company concealed the extent and severity of the oil spills; (c) as news of the oil spills emerged, the Company downplayed its responsibility to effect the cleanup of the oil spills as it portrayed itself as being the “non-operator” of the oilfield; (d) the Company improperly accounted for its contingent liabilities in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (e) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s operations and its expected oil production.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of CNOOC ADSs during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
www.rgrdlaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indianapolis Business Corporate Law Firm
Law Firm News |
2012/02/29 09:39
|
Entity Selection amp; Formation
There are many important decisions to be made by an emerging business, each of which come with potential pitfalls that be damaging to the business and its owners in the absence of proper legal guidance. Our attorneys can help you with these issues, steering you clear of the problems while helping you select the type of entity which best serves your business interests and goals. From drafting the formation documents to stock issuance to agreements between co-owners, our Firm’s skilled business attorneys can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business’s future.
Contract Drafting amp; Negotiation
Beyond the formation of business entities, our Firm acts as a corporate counsel for many of its business clients, including the negotiation, drafting and review of our client’s contracts, ranging in size from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars. With just a few hours’ time, our review of contracts before they are signed can help our clients avoid paying for hundreds of hours of attorney time in litigation once a contract dispute arises.
Riley Bennett amp; Egloff Law is a Business amp; Corporate law firm that offers an all-inclusive range of legal services for their business clients and is capable of handling the various issues any business can face. Based in Indianapolis, their attorneys have expertise in entity selection and formation, contract drafting and negotiation, and mergers and acquisitions. Their experience can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business's future. See www.rbelaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
Opinions |
2012/02/28 10:03
|
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some circumstances.
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56. Although no such opportunity was given, the court found there was no prejudice and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative?-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool amp; Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent.
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
British arms-to-Iran suspect faces Texas court
Court Watch |
2012/02/28 08:01
|
A retired British businessman is to appear in a federal court in El Paso after being extradited last week on charges that he tried to sell missile batteries to Iran in 2006.
Christopher Tappin turned himself in Friday after fighting extradition from the United Kingdom for two years. Two other men were sentenced in 2007 to 20 and 24 months in federal prison for their roles in the scheme.
The 65-year-old Tappin was denied a final appeal of his extradition last month and delivered to El Paso by federal marshals. His deportation sparked a debate in the U.K. over whether British and American citizens are treated equally under the two countries' extradition treaty.
Don Cogdell, Tappin's attorney in Texas, said he plans to aggressively push to have Tappin granted bail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court 101 in session at high court
Court Watch |
2012/02/27 10:03
|
George Mason University law student Matthew Long still has three months of schoolwork before graduation, but this week he and two classmates had a case before the Supreme Court.
The group of students is part of a new class dedicated to Supreme Court work at the Fairfax, Va., school. Nationwide, more than a half dozen law schools offer similar courses.
The students don't get to argue the cases. They aren't even lawyers yet. But students participating in the so-called Supreme Court clinics get to do everything else: research issues, draft briefs and consult with the lawyer actually presenting the case to the high court.
We're all very much aware that you can go your entire legal career without ever being on a case before this court, and it's unbelievable that we'd have this experience as law students, Long, 26, said as he stood outside the Supreme Court after Monday's arguments in a case about a man in prison for murder in Colorado and time limits involved in his case.
Stanford University started the first Supreme Court clinic for students in 2004 and is still involved in the most cases. But schools with clinics now include Harvard University, Yale University, the University of Virginia and the University of Texas. In the past three years, clinics report that students have been involved in about 1 out of every 6 cases argued before the court. This week, students are participating in two of the court's cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BP 'ready for long court battle over Gulf spill'
Topics |
2012/02/27 10:02
|
BP chief executive Bob Dudley said the company is able to fight a lengthy court battle over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dudley, who took control of BP in October 2012 after former chief executive Tony Hayward resigned amid criticism over the way he had handled the oil spill, told the Sunday Telegraph that BP can continue to function even if the court case that begins in New Orleans today continues for years.
We have to remember we are a business that invests in decade-long cycles, he said.
For the vast majority of people now at BP, the company is back on its feet and it is starting to move forward, he said.
BP has set aside US$40 billion to deal with fines and associated costs of the April 20, 2010 blowout of BP's deepwater Macondo well which killed 11 workers and injured 17. The burning drilling rig Deepwater Horizon toppled and sank to the Gulf floor, where it sits today.
It took engineers 85 days to permanently cap the well.
By then, more than 750 million litres of oil leaked from the well and had covered much of the northern half of the Gulf of Mexico endangering fisheries, killing marine life and shutting down offshore oil drilling operations.
President Barack Obama called the BP spill the worst environmental disaster the nation has ever faced.
Dudley said BP had improved safety standards on its rigs, five of which are working again in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the company was still committed to deepwater drilling.
We had a choice whether or not to back away from the offshore industry and the deep water industry but we have a lot of great strengths in this area and so, rather than move away, we have gone in with even more commitment, more time and more people, more expertise, he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
