|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Press Release |
2012/03/12 11:50
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walter Energy, Inc. between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walter Energy produces and exports metallurgical coal for electric utility and industrial customers in the United States.
The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business and financial prospects, including that: (1) the Company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced the Company’s coal production; (2) the Company’s commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter, at first quarter sales prices, would result in a material adverse effect on Walter Energy’s second-quarter average sales prices and operating results; (3) the Company was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (4), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s business and financial prospects during the Class Period.
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 Walter Energy common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status.
www.glancylaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action
Press Release |
2012/02/16 09:57
|
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers the common stock of Collective Brands, Inc. between December 1, 2010 and May 24, 2011, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Scott J. Farrell, Esquire of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, New York 11530 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/collective-brands-inc-pss.
Collective Brands was formed in 2007 when Payless ShoeSource acquired the Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (formerly the Stride Rite Corporation) and Collective Licensing International. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Collective Brands and certain of the Company’s directors and/or officers made materially false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial results. Specifically, it is alleged that defendants concealed from the investing public problems concerning the Company’s inventory level for Payless; significantly lower sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and that the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s inventory at significant discounts, which negatively affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
On May 24, 2011, the Company disclosed its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. As alleged in the Complaint, the Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted EPS expected by analysts. The Company also reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless Domestic segment. As a result, the price of Collective Brands common stock dropped $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a decline of approximately 17% on heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 26, 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.
http://www.rigrodskylong.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Press Release |
2012/01/16 09:40
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Netflix, Inc. common stock during the period between December 20, 2010 and October 24, 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/netflix. 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 Netflix and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netflix is a subscription service that streams television shows and movies over the Internet, and in the United States subscribers can have DVDs delivered to their homes.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and its contracts with content providers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Netflix’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011. While Netflix stock was inflated (partially by Netflix buying back its own stock), Company insiders were selling 388,661 shares of their own Netflix stock for proceeds of $90.2 million.
On September 15, 2011, Netflix updated its third quarter 2011 guidance and revealed that it had lost a million subscribers due to its recently announced price increases becoming effective. On this news, Netflix stock fell nearly $40 per share to close at just under $170 per share. On September 19, 2011, the Company announced that, in an effort to offset skyrocketing costs and rapidly defecting customers, the Company would begin charging separately for its two services and had raised prices as much as 60%. Netflix stock dropped to $130 per share on this news. Then, on October 24, 2011, Netflix issued its third quarter 2011 shareholder letter, which reported a net loss of 810,000 U.S. subscribers, translating into a cumulative loss of 5.5 million subscribers. The subsequently filed Form 10-Q revealed that Netflix’s obligations for content over the coming years had skyrocketed to $3.5 billion, with $2.8 billion due within three years. These disclosures caused Netflix stock to collapse from $118.84 per share on October 24, 2011 to $80.86 per share on October 27, 2011, a 32% decline in three days and a 73% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
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) Netflix had short-term contracts with content providers and defendants were aware that the Company faced the choice of renegotiating the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates or not renewing them at all; (b) content providers were already demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically alter Netflix’s business; (c) defendants recognized that Netflix’s pricing would have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be incurring; and (d) Netflix was not on track to achieve the earnings forecasts made by and for the Company for 2011.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Netflix common stock 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.
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. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Paul Brunner and Doug Otte Story
Press Release |
2011/12/25 16:33
|
WATCH: http://www.insiderexclusive.com/show-content/410-dream-vacations-gone-bad--the-paul-brunner-and-doug-otte-story.html
A Dream "Big Game" Hunting Vacation.... to the Arctic Circle goes horribly wrong.... in the flash of a moment .....On August 26, 2001.....for experienced big game bow hunters, Paul Brunner from Montana and Doug Otte from Nebraska...who were two of six hunters on a musk ox expedition north of the Arctic Circle in Nunavut, Canada. They went on a trip to the Cambridge Bay area of Nunavut Province, north of the Arctic Circle that was sold to them by Canada North, a foreign based company, to include the housing, food, a cook and other provisions during this 10 day hunt for musk ox.
An explosion turned their cabin into an inferno, burning and trapping Brunner, Hampson and Otte. In this TV Special, The Insider Exclusive presents "Dream Vacations Gone Bad - The Paul Brunner and Doug Otte Story ...... and the "legal challenges" Americans face when you purchase your "exotic vacations" from a "foreign-based company".
Litigating on behalf of travelers who have been seriously injured in exotic and distant locations can be challenging.... indeed. Where and who, for example, are the viable and liable defendants in real life vacation disasters?
This INSIDER EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL discusses the "Rights of Americans" while traveling to exotic locations and liability of tour operators and air carriers for the tour participant's injuries sustained in foreign destinations. Foreign companies cannot solicit U.S. Citizens for adventure trips and not be responsible for their negligent operations on those trips which result in serious, deforming injuries to their U.S. customers. A tour operator may be held liable for the consumer's physical injuries if the tour operator promised.... either expressly or implicitly.... that the tour would be delivered in a safe and careful manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
