|
|
|
Rigrodsky Long, P.A. Files Securities Fraud Class Action
Legal Focuses |
2011/12/29 09:47
|
Rigrodsky amp; Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. between February 17, 2011 and November 10, 2011, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is entitled Thaler v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 11-CV-9528 (S.D.N.Y.). The Complaint names IntraLinks and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.
If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky amp; Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/intralinks-il.
IntraLinks, together with its subsidiaries, provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for securely managing content, exchanging critical business information, and collaborating within and among organizations worldwide.
The Complaint asserts that during the Class Period, defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the positive statements concerning the Company’s business prospects, as well as the full year guidance provided by Defendants on February 17, 2011, were materially false and misleading because by end of the first quarter of 2011 a large Enterprise customer informed the Company that it was dramatically reducing its use of IntraLinks’ products going forward and that the Company would have to reducing its earnings expectations as a result. Despite their knowledge of the foregoing, however, defendants failed to disclose that their positive statements about the Company’s business prospects, or the financial guidance issued in February 2011, were no longer accurate in light of the reduced use of the Company’s products by the large Enterprise customer.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 4, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed 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.
Rigrodsky amp; Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
http://www.rigrodskylong.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit
Marketing |
2011/12/28 10:29
|
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 Veolia Environnement S.A. American Depositary Shares during the period between April 27, 2007 and August 4, 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, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld 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/veolia/. 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 Veolia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Veolia operates utility and public transportation businesses. The Company supplies drinking water, provides waste management services, manages and maintains heating and air conditioning systems, and operates rail and road passenger transportation systems.
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: (a) that Veolia was materially overstating its financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices; (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; (c) that Veolia failed to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the United States, and for Southern Europe; (d) that the Company’s revenues were being hampered by the renewal of some of its major concession contracts; and (e) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court upholds convictions in Fort Dix plot
Law Firm News |
2011/12/28 10:28
|
A federal appeals panel on Wednesday upheld the convictions and sentences of five Muslim men accused of planning to attack Fort Dix or other military bases, though it threw out a charge against one defendant.
The main issue was prosecutors' use of wiretaps obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a part of the Patriot Act aimed largely at gathering foreign intelligence.
The recordings were a major piece of a 2½-month trial for the five men, all Muslim immigrants who grew up in the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia.
The men — Mohamad Shnewer, Serdar Tatar, and brothers Dritan, Eljvir and Shain Duka — were arrested in May 2007. In 2008, a federal jury in Camden, N.J., convicted them of conspiring to kill U.S. military personnel at Fort Dix. All but Tatar are serving life terms.
Defense lawyers said it was unconstitutional to use the recordings in a domestic criminal case and that it may have been impossible to convict the men without the evidence.
But in a unanimous ruling written by Judge Marjorie O. Rendell, a three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The challenged search was conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on a duly authorized statute, and therefore admissible at trial, Rendell wrote.
Another major issue came from an error that federal prosecutors acknowledged in January: Three of the men were convicted of attempted possession of firearms in furtherance of a crime, but the law in question does not have a provision that outlaws attempted possession. |
|
|
|
|
|
Riders stuck on snow-trapped train sue NY agency
Court Watch |
2011/12/27 10:28
|
Subway riders stuck all night in a train trapped by snow after a blizzard sued a transportation agency on Tuesday, saying officials told them it was simply an act of God.
In court papers describing last year's ordeal, they said they had no heat, food, water or bathroom facilities while the Metropolitan Transportation Authority kept promising help.
The city was all but paralyzed when the storm hit on Dec. 26, 2010, with 2 feet of snow piled around an A train on elevated tracks in Queens. Inside were about 500 passengers who spent eight hours there in freezing temperatures.
The conductor refused to allow passengers off the train, resulting in a deplorable imprisonment, said 22 of them named in the suit, which was filed in Queens state Supreme Court.
They are seeking unspecified damages from the New York City Transit Authority, part of the MTA, which runs the nation's largest mass transit system. The subway alone has a daily ridership of more than 5 million.
Manhattan attorney Aymen Aboushi said the stranded passengers decided to sue after a year of meetings with transit officials convinced them that suing was the only way to get the MTA to pay attention. He said he's handling the case pro bono in hopes of forcing changes in the emergency response system to avert a similar nightmare. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rejects Hessler appeal
Law Firm News |
2011/12/26 16:10
|
The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday rejected a death-row inmate’s claim that his lawyer failed to properly represent the convicted kidnapper, rapist and murderer at his sentencing.
Jeffrey Hessler had argued that his trial-court lawyer should have demanded a competency hearing when Hessler moved to represent himself at his sentencing. The state Supreme Court rejected that argument, saying allowing someone to serve as their own attorney did not constitute ineffective counsel and Hessler failed to show he couldn’t adequately represent himself at sentencing.
Hessler was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, first-degree sexual assault of a child and use of a firearm to commit a felony in December 2004. He was sentenced to die for the 2003 kidnapping, rape and shooting death of 15-year-old Heather Guerrero. She was delivering newspapers on her morning route just blocks from her home when Hessler grabbed her and forced her into his car.
A jury found that Hessler took her to an abandoned house at nearby Lake Minatare, raped her and then shot her in the head on Feb. 11, 2003. Guerrero’s body was found the next day at the house, about 12 miles from where she disappeared.
Hessler claimed in his appeal that his trial lawyer was ineffective and failed to tell the court that he suffered from mental health problems, including hallucinations.
Scotts Bluff County District Judge Randall Lippstreu dismissed that claim earlier this year, saying Hessler and his attorneys seemed to have had philosophical differences between the time of Hessler’s conviction and sentencing hearing. But, the judge said, that did not constitute ineffective counsel. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Legal Focuses |
2011/12/25 16:11
|
Shareholders of Pain Therapeutics, Inc. are reminded of the securities class action lawsuit filed against PTIE and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased PTIE securities during the period from February 3, 2011 through June 23, 2011.
If you are a shareholder who purchased PTIE securities during the Class Period, you have until January 31, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, PTIE made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts about a new drug, REMOXY. Specifically, PTIE failed to disclose that REMOXY was not approvable by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration due to chemistry, manufacturing, and control deficiencies that caused inconsistent results during laboratory tests.
www.pomerantzlaw.com. |
|
|
|
|