|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Salazar Law Firm, PLLC.
Marketing |
2012/02/20 09:32
|
a href=hurtinhouston.comHouston Motorcycle Accident Law Firm/a
Motorcycle accidents happen for a variety of reasons, but statistics consistently show that they are now happening with alarming regularity. Approximately 25,000 people are injured and over 1,000 killed every year as a result of motorcycle accidents. A motorcycle accident can cause catastrophic injuries, leaving the victim partially or completely paralyzed. Motorcycle accidents that result in a wrongful death often leave the victim's family to deal with the sudden and unexpected loss. The most common causes are: driver error, reckless driving by another, dangerous road conditions, mechanical failure, and faulty motorcycle design.
The Salazar Law Firm is committed to providing clients involved in motorcycle accidents with the aggressive advocacy and knowledgeable support they need to get back on their feet. Their team of attorney aim to help the victims obtain a reasonably fair compensation for their losses and suffering. They are there for every step of the way, starting with the investigation site. See http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Houston Class Actions Law Firm - The Salazar Law Firm
Marketing |
2012/02/16 09:54
|
A class action is a case brought against an entity whose actions have damaged a group of people in a similar way.nbsp; A class proponent who has been injured may bring a class action on behalf of everyone who was harmed, with class members joining later on.
Class action lawsuits help to achieve justice not just for the individuals who bring such claims, but also for those who have suffered similar losses caused by a defendant's wrongdoing.nbsp; Class actions are an important and valuable part of the legal system, providing for the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by allowing the claims to be brought together into a single case against the defendant that allegedly caused the harm.
Closer: The Salazar Law firm knows and understand class action cases. Class actions claims are long and exhausting but their attorneys are proficient and professional and will support and guide their clients every step of the difficult process. Their experience over the years have given them extensive knowledge on class action matters. Their goal is to built strong lawsuits designed to get compensation for clients impacted by wrongdoings of businesses. Contact Salazar Law Firm for your free case evaluation and visit http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm Marketing Coach - Why do law firms need a good SEO?
Marketing |
2012/02/14 09:42
|
Most lawyers who are freshly introduced to the idea of internet marketing will build their website with a design company and then think visitors will start flowing in automatically after the website's initial launch. No matter how professional and aesthetically appealing your website may be, in the web environment today, visitors will never automatically attract and roll in. This is why law firms need good SEO and more importantly, why SEO matters if you want your business to be successful.
So what exactly is SEO you say? Surely, you must have heard talk about this recent buzz. And if you haven't, I am here to provide the 411 on everything you need to know about good SEO.
SEO is the acronym given for search engine optimization and choosing to invest in good SEO will be the huge factor in improving your law firm website and will also save time and money on other marketing strategies.nbsp; There is, however, a possibility at risking damage to your law firm's reputation and website if you do not do your research in advance and end up in the hand's of a careless SEO company. Good SEOs will provide useful services for law firm website owners, including but not limited to:
- content development
- keyword research
- expertise in marketing techniques
- review of your website's structure and content
- advice on technical aspects of website development
In short, SEO-friendly websites allow online robots to analyze the codes and contents of your site. Major search engines like Google and Yahoo then look specifically for keywords, phrases, and web coding in order to rank your website amongst the other competiting webpages. Organic search results is the better resort over Pay Per Click (PCC)
advertisement by increasing indexability and because of it's history. Pay Per Click services can cost a hefty sum and may not even produce effective results.
Why should you take my word for it? If I have still yet to convince you on why your law firm needs a good SEO, I'll dissect into all the benefits. A great search optimization company will do more than just generate leads for your website.nbsp; Creating a website without incorporating good SEO can pretty much equate to throwing money away. The money invested in building a great website alone will not cut it AND you might even be spending more on other marketing strategies like advertising through other avenues of media. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Marketing |
2011/12/18 11:17
|
Shareholders of Pain Therapeutics, Inc. are reminded of the securities class action lawsuit filed against Pain Therapeutics and certain of its officers. The class action (1-11-CV-1034), 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 (the Class Period). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
