|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Legal Focuses |
2011/08/23 10:28
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against SinoTech Energy Limited in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) of SinoTech pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”) on November 3, 2010, including open-market purchasers of SinoTech ADSs between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The Complaint charges SinoTech, certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. SinoTech provides enhanced oil recovery services to oil companies in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that certain representations made in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially inaccurate. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company’s reported sales and revenues were materially inaccurate, because the nature, size and scope of the Company’s business was materially exaggerated.
On August 16, 2011, a research report was published on the Internet questioning SinoTech’s previously issued financial statements and future prospects. The report alleged that: (1) SinoTech’s sole import agent, accounting for over $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, appears to be an empty shell company with no sign of operation, a limited import history and negligible revenue base; (2) the Company’s only chemical supplier is an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company’s five largest subcontracting customers, which provide the vast majority of SinoTech’s revenues, appear to be shell companies with unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; and (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions.
On this news, ADSs of SinoTech declined more than 40%, to close on August 16, 2011, at $2.35 per share. Thereafter, NASDAQ halted trading of the Company’s stock.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased ADSs of SinoTech between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until October 18, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldman falls on news that CEO hired top lawyer
Stock Market News |
2011/08/23 10:27
|
Goldman Sachs shares fell sharply Monday following news that its CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, has hired a top Washington defense lawyer.
Blankfein and other top executives at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are facing inquiries from the Justice Department and other agencies on the firm's practices leading up to the financial crisis.
Goldman confirmed a report from Reuters that Blankfein has retained Reid Weingarten from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP. Weingarten is known to have represented top corporate executives who have been charged with wrongdoing including former WorldCom chief Bernard Ebbers.
Weingarten's office didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Goldman Sachs said in a statement: "Blankfein and other individuals who were expected to be interviewed in connection with the Justice Department's inquiry into certain matters raised in the (Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations) report hired counsel at the outset."
|
|
|
|
|
|
NC judge mulls US Airways claim of pilot slowdown
Court Watch |
2011/08/23 07:28
|
A federal judge in North Carolina says he'll rule soon on a lawsuit by US Airways claiming its pilots are staging an illegal work slowdown.
The Charlotte Observer reported Tuesday that the union representing US Airways pilots says the airline is trying to intimidate the pilots into flying on time no matter the risk.
The sides wrapped up their case in Charlotte on Monday.
Tempe, Ariz.-based US Airways says in the lawsuit filed late last month that its pilots are deliberately delaying flights and that its busiest hub in Charlotte has been disproportionately affected.
Capt. Michael Cleary of the Charlotte-based US Airline Pilots Association testified no slowdown is taking place.
The two sides have had a contract dispute since US Airways merged with America West in 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawsuit Over Idaho's Mental Health Care for Kids Revived
Court Watch |
2011/08/22 10:29
|
A federal appeals court has revived a decades-old lawsuit against the state of Idaho over claims of substandard children's mental health care.
The case began in 1980 when a little boy known only as Jeff D. brought a class-action lawsuit against the state for institutionalizing mentally ill children instead of providing care for them. In Wednesday's ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the lower court must consider whether the state was meeting the larger goals of providing community-based mental health care to indigent children with severe emotional and mental disabilities.
Idaho Deputy Attorney General Michael Gilmore said he couldn't immediately comment on the ruling because his office was still reviewing it. The attorney representing Jeff D. said the ruling was a vindication for children with severe emotional disturbances and their families.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Princeton Review Inc.
Legal Focuses |
2011/08/21 10:29
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of The Princeton Review, Inc. (“Princeton Review” or the “Company”) in or traceable to the Company’s offering of common stock on or about April 15, 2010 (the “Offering”), as well as purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 12, 2009 and March 11, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”). For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/revu. Princeton Review provides integrated classroom-based print and online products and services to the high school and post-secondary markets in the United States and internationally. The complaint charges Princeton Review and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (1) that the Company’s revenues and earnings were negatively impacted by increased competition in its marketplace,; (2) that a number of significant operational problems existed at the Company that negatively impacted its business; (3) that the Company had shifted its focus away from its core higher education readiness and Penn Foster core businesses; (4) that contrary to the Company’s public statements, the Company was not executing well on its turn-around plan; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis of fact and were materially false and misleading when made. On March 9, 2011, the Company announced that Princeton Review’s President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), defendant Michael Perik, resigned and that the Board appointed John M. Connolly as Interim President and CEO. That same day, Princeton Review issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2010. For the full year 2010, loss from continuing operations was $50.4 million, compared to a loss of $13.9 million in 2009. On this news, shares of Princeton Review stock declined 37.80% to $0.51 per share on March 10, 2011, and then declined another 23.53% on March 11, 2011, to close at $0.39 per share on very heavy volume. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than September 27, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts 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. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information about the case or to participate online, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/revu or contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. |
|
|
|
|
 |
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 |
|