|
|
|
U.S. man suing Facebook fined $5,000 by court
Headline Legal News |
2012/01/11 10:43
|
A man who's suing for part ownership of Facebook has been fined $5,000 by a federal judge for failing to fully comply with an order to turn over his e-mail account information.
A man suing for part ownership of Facebook was fined $5,000 for failing to comply with a court order.
Paul Ceglia was also ordered to pay some of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's legal expenses.
The sanctions are a setback for Ceglia's claim in U.S. District Court that a 2003 contract he and Zuckerberg signed entitles him to half ownership of the social networking site estimated to be worth more than $50 billion.
The judge issued the sanctions late Tuesday, faulting Ceglia for ordering his lawyers not to fully obey his orders.
Palo Alto, California-based Facebook claims Ceglia's contract is fake. Ceglia's lawyer says his client will pay the penalties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Class Action
Securities Class Action |
2012/01/10 09:52
|
Bernstein Liebhard 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 Camelot Information Systems Inc. American Depositary Shares between July 21, 2010 and August 17, 2011, including those who acquired Camelot ADSs pursuant or traceable to the Company’s false and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued in connection with its July 21, 2010 initial public offering and December 10, 2010 Secondary Offering.
The complaint charges Camelot, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Offerings with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Camelot is a holding company that conducts business through its operating subsidiaries in China. The Company is a provider of enterprise application services and financial industry information technology services in China.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose negative trends in Camelot’s business, including with Camelot’s most important customers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Camelot ADSs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $26.73 per share on January 11, 2011.
On July 21, 2010, Camelot announced the pricing of its IPO of 13.3 million ADSs at $11.00 per ADS. Subsequently, on December 9, 2010, Camelot announced the pricing of its Secondary Offering of 7,160,206 ADSs by selling shareholders at $19.50 per ADS. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements issued in connection with the Offerings were inaccurate and misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
On August 15, 2011, Seeking Alpha published an article questioning several key components of Camelot’s business. This caused Camelot’s ADSs to drop to below $9 per share. Then on August 18, 2011, Camelot issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2011 unaudited financial results, including lower-than-expected guidance for fiscal 2011. On this news, Camelot’s ADSs dropped $2.24 per share to close at $6.32 per share on August 18, 2011, a one-day decline of 26%.
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’s IT professionals were not a competitive advantage to the Company and many were dissatisfied with Camelot, which would adversely affect Camelot’s ability to retain its customers; (b) the Company was suffering from undisclosed attrition of employees, which was having a negative impact on the Company’s ability to attract new customers; (c) Camelot did not have the large numbers of highly trained professionals at its disposal that it had represented; and (d) Camelot’s contract with its most important customer, IBM, was not as solid as represented, and would not be renewed on the same terms.
www.bernlieb.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme court won't let man appeal murder conviction
Topics in Legal News |
2012/01/10 09:50
|
The Supreme Court won't let a man sentenced to prison for murder appeal his conviction despite his complaints that his window for further consideration was unfairly closed.
The high court on Tuesday upheld the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez.
Gonzalez appealed his conviction for murder and his 30-year sentence in 2006 but missed one of the state lower court appeals deadlines. The federal courts since then have refused to hear his appeal, saying he filed in federal court one month after the required one-year deadline.
The courts started counting from the day Gonzalez missed the state court deadline, but the inmate said they should have started counting after the Texas courts officially declared his case over.
The high court said that the lower courts had correctly calculated the deadline for Gonzalez to file. Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote that Gonzalez's one-year deadline to appeal to the federal court began when he missed the state court filing date. Since Gonzalez filed one month after that one-year cutoff, the judgment against him became final, she said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rules in favor of arbitration
Headline Legal News |
2012/01/10 09:49
|
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that disputes between consumers and companies that issue low-rate credit cards to people with bad credit ratings can be handled in business-friendly arbitration, rather than federal court.
The justices voted 8-1 to reverse a federal appeals court ruling allowing consumers to sue in federal court, the latest in a string of recent high court decisions in favor of arbitration. The consumers said they were promised an initial $300 in available credit, but were charged $257 in fees in the first year they had the credit card.
But the court, with only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting, agreed with the companies' argument that the dispute must be settled through arbitration, under an agreement that the customers signed to receive the card.
The federal Credit Repair Organizations Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, says consumers have a right to sue, which the federal appeals court in San Francisco interpreted as a right to go to court, rather than be forced to submit to arbitration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Law Office of James C. Kelly Announces Investigation
Legal Focuses |
2012/01/10 05:49
|
The Law Office of James C. Kelly announces that it is investigating potential claims against the board of directors of Inhibitex, Inc. concerning possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law related to the Company's entry into an agreement to be acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company in a transaction with an approximate value of $2.5 billion.
Under the proposed agreement, Bristol-Myers will commence a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Inhibitex's common stock at a price of $26.00 per share in cash. The investigation concerns whether Inhibitex's board of directors adequately shopped the Company to obtain the best price possible for the Company's shareholders before entering into the agreement with Bristol-Myers.
If you are a holder of Inhibitex common stock and want to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call The Law Office of James C. Kelly who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. Please contact James C. Kelly, Esq., of The Law Office of James C. Kelly, 477 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, by toll free telephone at (888) 643-7517
For more information about the firm, please visit its website at http://www.jckellylaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Investment Fraud Litigation |
|
|
|
|
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo |
|
Legal News RSS Feed
