|
|
|
National Mesothelioma Awareness Day 2011
Legal Marketing |
2011/09/22 11:13
|
National Mesothelioma Awareness Day 2011 carries special meaning for New York-based Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., one of the nation's leading personal injury law firms, because so many of its clients are mesothelioma victims on whose behalf hundreds of millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements have been won.
Arthur Luxenberg, founding partner of Weitz & Luxenberg, explains that mesothelioma is a relatively rare form of cancer that strikes as many as 3,000 Americans each year.
"A common cause of mesothelioma is asbestos exposure," he says. "Victims tend to be electricians, plumbers, armed forces veterans -- anyone who worked with or around asbestos. The condition develops decades after exposure, but the disease can prove fatal within a year of diagnosis. At present, there is no cure. And to make matters worse, family members also often fall prey to mesothelioma as a result of secondary exposure to asbestos fibers carried into the home by the primary victim."
Weitz & Luxenberg has been able to play a pivotal role in the ongoing effort to compensate mesothelioma victims thanks to its extensive experience and vast resources.
"Mesothelioma awareness is an extremely serious issue, and we at Weitz & Luxenberg are grateful for the opportunity National Mesothalioma Awerness Day 2011 affords us to inform people about it, to build broader partnerships that hopefully can deliver more help to victims," says Luxenberg.
The disease -- which affects internal organs by attacking surrounding membranes -- receives less attention than it deserves, health advocates insist. Their raised voices helped convince Congress to acknowledge the problem of mesothelioma by proclaiming Sept. 26, 2011 National Mesothelioma Awareness Day.
About Weitz & Luxenberg
Founded in 1986 by attorneys Perry Weitz and Arthur Luxenberg, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., today ranks among the nation's leading law firms. It specializes in multiple litigation fields including: mesothelioma; defective medicine and devices; environmental pollutants; accidents; personal injury; and medical malpractice. Weitz & Luxenberg offers free legal consultation to injured parties by calling 1-800-476-6070 or by emailing clientrelations@weitzlux.com. More information is available at www.weitzlux.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Pa. House speaker pleads guilty to corruption
Legal Marketing |
2011/09/06 09:33
|
The onetime speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives pleaded guilty Wednesday to eight criminal charges stemming from a public corruption investigation, making him the highest-ranking state politician to be convicted in the four-and-a-half-year inquiry.
Ex-Rep. John M. Perzel entered the plea to two counts of conflict of interest, two counts of theft and four counts of conspiracy. He left the courthouse without commenting, but apologized in an e-mailed statement and said he bore responsibility for improprieties in spending public funds he controlled.
"It was up to me to see that taxpayer funds were spent only for the betterment of the people of Pennsylvania, and not for my political benefit (or) that of my party," Perzel said in the news release.
Prosecutors have described Perzel, 61, as being at the center of a scheme to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on computer technology for the benefit of GOP political campaigns.
Also Wednesday, his nephew and co-defendant Eric S. Ruth, 36, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and conflict of interest. Ruth once worked in the House Republican technology office. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Court Cannot Exclude Evidence Because It Is Self-Serving
Legal Marketing |
2011/08/31 08:41
|
In Reed v. City of Evansville, _ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 82A05-1012-PL-768, Evansville sought to have some of the evidence the Reeds submitted in opposition to the City's motion for summary judgment because it was "self-serving." Today, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that parties should not make this same objection in the future.
The Reeds filed a claim against Evansville and Evansville moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notice was not timely under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted that motion and the Reeds appealed.
On appeal, the Court held that the trial court erred when granting summary judgment to the City, because there were genuine issues of material fact. The court then addressed the City's cross-appeal, which challenged the trial court's denial of the City's motion to strike some of the Reeds' evidence. The City moved to strike some of that evidence because it was "self-serving." The Court had none of it.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/A-Court-Cannot-Exclude-Evidence-Because-It-Is-Self-Serving |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Announces Class Action
Legal Marketing |
2011/08/30 09:21
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against SinoTech Energy Limited, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters.
The lawsuit, which is captioned Crayder v. SinoTech Energy Limited, et al., 11-CV-05935, alleges violations of the United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of SinoTech's American Depository Shares ("ADSs") from November 3, 2010 through August 16, 2011 (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of ADSs in the Company's November 3, 2010 initial public offering (the "November IPO"). Claims for November IPO purchasers arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Claims for other Class Period purchasers fall under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The lawsuit asserts numerous problems with SinoTech's previously issued financial statements and declarations about its future prospects. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that: (1) the Company's sole import agent, which accounted for more than $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company's only chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company's largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast majority of SinoTech's revenues, has 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; (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (6) positive statements the Company made regarding its internal financial controls were false and misleading.
On August 16, 2011, a research analyst writing under the name Alfred Little published an investigative report (the "Report") detailing these and other problems at SinoTech. The day the Report was issued, the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40%, falling from $4.02 per share on August 15, 2011 to $2.35 per share at the close of trading on August 16, 2011 - a decline of $1.67 per share on unusually high trading volume. The NASDAQ halted SinoTech trading after the market closed on August 16, 2011, announcing that trading would remain halted until the Company "fully satisfied NASDAQ's request for additional information." To date, trading has not resumed.
If you purchased the common stock of SinoTech and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 18, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this action, or you may do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and West Palm Beach, and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation.
The firm’s reputation for excellence has repeatedly been recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total over a billion dollars. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For more information visit www.cohenmilstein.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Berman DeValerio Announces Securities Class Action
Legal Marketing |
2011/08/23 10:19
|
The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action lawsuit today against Miller Energy Resources, Inc.
The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of common stock from December 16, 2009 through and including August 1, 2011 (the “Class Period”).
Berman DeValerio (www.bermandevalerio.com) brought the complaint against the Company and certain of its directors and officers (the “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The case is filed as 3:11-cv-00397.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as the lead plaintiff are required to file a motion for appointment with the court no later than October 11, 2011.
The claims arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for class period purchasers.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Miller, an oil and gas exploration, production and drilling firm, and the other Defendants made material false statements about Miller’s financial results and about the valuation of certain oil-and-gas-producing assets it acquired in Alaska. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants: (1) issued false and misleading consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and cash flows; (2) failed to properly classify royalty expenses; (3) failed to properly record sufficient compensation expense on equity awards; (4) did not properly calculate the liability for derivative instruments; (5) did not properly consolidate entities under its control; and (6) improperly reported the value of certain oil and gas assets that it acquired in Alaska. As a result of these problems, the Company was required to restate its financial results. Over a series of almost daily disclosures occurring on July 28, 2011, July 29, 2011 and August 1, 2011, Miller’s stock price dropped from $7.04 per share on July 27, 2011 to a close of $3.37 per share on August 2, 2011, a total drop of $3.67 or 52%.
To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio at (800) 516-9926.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 11, 2011, request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. In addition, you may contact the attorneys at Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interests in the case. Please note: you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member.
Berman DeValerio is a national law firm representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers, chiefly for violations of securities and antitrust laws. The firm has 49 lawyers in Boston, San Francisco and South Florida. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Firm Web Design Information |
| Law Promo has worked with attorneys, lawyers and law firms all over the world in designing beautiful law firm websites that look great on all devices, from desktop computers to mobile phones. Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive law firm website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the mobile world. Solo Practice Law Firm Website Design |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
