Today's Date: Add To Favorites   
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.


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.



Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Class Action Lawsuits
Legal Focuses | 2011/08/04 09:12
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Two Class Action Lawsuits on Behalf of Iowa Property Owners Alleging DuPont's Imprelis™ Herbicide Killed and Damaged Trees on Their Property

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, a national law firm representing victims of defective products and toxic substances, together with its partner law firms, has filed two class action lawsuits on behalf of Iowa residents alleging DuPont's Imprelis™ herbicide killed and damaged trees on their property. The first, brought by Daryl and Mary Ann Haley of Tipton, Iowa, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-00085-LRRR). A second Imprelis™ lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nicholas L. Peters of Mars, Iowa, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Sioux City Division (Case No. 5:11-cv-04066-MWB). Both Complaints seeks class action status on behalf of property owners who have sustained damage as a result of Imprelis™.

Plaintiffs in both lawsuits allege Imprelis™ was applied to their lawns in accordance with directions and instructions supplied by DuPont. The Class Action Complaints allege that as a result of the Imprelis™ applications, the Plaintiffs suffered significant damage and harm to trees, and will continue to suffer even further damage to their lawn and garden because of Imprelis™. The lawsuits further allege that rather than being isolated incidents, thousands of trees have been reported as being infected by Imprelis™, and tens of thousands more reports are expected in the future.

Both lawsuits charge DuPont with, among other things, negligence, strict liability, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranties. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief barring DuPont from continued sale of Imprelis™, and compensatory and other damages including the cost of replacing trees damaged by Imprelis™.

Imprelis™, brought to market by DuPont in October 2010, is designed to kill broadleaf weeds, including dandelion, clover and wild violet. It is touted by DuPont as an environmentally-friendly herbicide and an "innovative solution to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds." According to a New York Times report, reports of dying trees possibly associated with Imprelis™ started surfacing around Memorial Day, and have since prompted warnings from extension services in several states. Imprelis™ is now suspected of causing the death of thousands of shallow-rooted trees, including willows, poplars and conifers, on lawns, golf courses, parks and cemeteries throughout the country. The reports have prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin gathering information on the tree deaths from state officials and DuPont.

DuPont acknowledged it was investigating reports of tree deaths and damage possibly associated with Imprelis™ in a letter to turf management professionals dated June 17, 2011. On July 27, 2011, the company issued another letter stating that in the course of its review, “We have observed tree injuries associated with Imprelis™, primarily on Norway spruce and white pine trees.” The problems appear to be concentrated in Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, DuPont said.

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP and its partner firms have now filed three class action lawsuits on behalf of property owners who claim to have sustained damage following application of Imprelis™. A previous lawsuit was filed on behalf of an Ohio property owner in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-01517).

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP continues to receive reports of Imprelis™ tree death and damage from around the country, including from homeowners, golf courses, universities, arboretums, nurseries and orchards, parks and recreational sites, and cemeteries. Parker Waichman Alonso LLP is investigating these complaints on behalf of property owners who have sustained damages as a result of Imprelis™. More information regarding Imprelis™ side effects can be obtained at Parker Waichman Alonso LLP's DuPont Imprelis™ poisoning page. The page will be updated regularly as more information becomes available.

For more information regarding Imprelis™ class action lawsuits and Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, please visit http://www.yourlawyer.com or call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).


Holly, Frontier Oil shareholders approve merger
Legal Focuses | 2011/06/28 02:27

Shareholders at refinery operators Frontier Oil Corp. and Holly Corp. voted on Tuesday to merge their companies, in a $3 billion deal expected to close Friday.

Frontier Oil said the deal was approved by 99 percent of the shareholder votes cast. The same percentage of Holly shareholders voted to issue the shares necessary for the share swap transaction, the company said. Holly shareholders also approved changing the company's name to HollyFrontier Corp., the surviving business once the merger closes.

The deal was announced in February as part of a wave of consolidation in the refining industry. Refineries that had struggled to pass on high oil prices during the recession started to see profits surge last year as demand grew for gasoline and other fuels. Marathon Oil announced earlier this year that it would spin off its refining business, and ConocoPhillips plans to minimize its refining arm from 24 percent to 15 percent of its core business.



Williams makes bid for Southern Union
Legal Focuses | 2011/06/23 10:40

The Williams Cos. Inc. announced an unsolicited takeover bid of about $4.9 billion Thursday for pipeline company Southern Union Co., which agreed last week to a sale to Energy Transfer Equity LP.

Williams, which also operates gas pipelines, said it would offer $39 per share in cash and top Energy Transfer's bid of $33 per share, or $4.2 billion.

The announcement came after the markets closed and sent Southern Union shares higher after hours.

Southern Union rose 34 cents to $34.15 in regular trading, then jumped $5, or 14.6 percent, to $39.19 in about a half-hour of late trading. Williams shares closed at $29.23, down 9 cents, and fell another 89 cents, or 3 percent, to $28.34 in late trading.

Williams said Southern Union would complement its own business, create a network of nearly 30,000 miles of regulated pipelines and save $50 million a year for the combined companies.



[PREV] [1] ..[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].. [26] [NEXT]
All
Securities Class Action
Headline Legal News
Stock Market News
Court News
Court Watch
Legal Interview
Securities Lawyers
Securities Law Firm
Topics in Legal News
Attorney News
Legal Focuses
Opinions
Legal Marketing
Law Firm News
Investment Fraud Litigation
Judge orders 30-year prison ..
US bans imports from 3 Chine..
Trump administration asks Su..
2 ex-FBI officials charged w..
Supreme Court agrees to revi..
Court agrees to hear watchdo..
Supreme Court rejects Roy Mo..
Trump says Russia and Ukrain..
Supreme Court rejects Roy Mo..
Bolsonaro and Lula head to a..
Attorney says woman will ple..
Supreme Court lets quick dep..
Maduro ally Alex Saab pleads..
Jury convicts Vermont man of..
Trump’s ‘grand conspiracy..
House approves sweeping Russ..


   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
Lane County, OR DUI Law Attorney
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Criminal Defense Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
Family Law in East Greenwich, RI
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
Post-Divorce Issues Attorney
   Legal Resource Links
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