|
|
|
High court considers Ga. suit over false testimony
Legal News Digest |
2011/11/03 08:45
|
The Supreme Court seemed unlikely on Tuesday to allow employees at a privately run federal prison to be sued by an inmate in federal court, despite his complaint that their neglect left him with two permanently damaged arms.
Justices heard appeals from lawyers representing employees of the GEO Group, formerly known as Wackenhut Corrections Corp, who work at the privately run Taft Correctional Institution in Taft, Calif. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled inmate Richard Lee Pollard could sue GEO officials for his treatment after he fell and fractured both of his elbows.
Pollard said GEO officials put him in a metal restraint that caused him pain, and refused to provide him with a splint, making his injuries worse and causing permanent impairment. He sued in federal court for money, claiming GEO officials had violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The federal appeals court allowed his lawsuit against the GEO officials to move forward. Courts normally don't allow government employees to be sued in those types of lawsuits, but the high court has authorized some if constitutionally protected rights have been violated by the federal employee and there is no state court remedy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Legal Business |
2011/11/02 10:15
|
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of HCA Holdings, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its March 9, 2011 initial public offering (IPO).
The Complaint charges that HCA, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants omitted the following from the Registration Statement: (i) HCA improperly accounted for its prior business combinations in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial results to be materially misstated; (ii) HCA failed to maintain effective internal controls concerning accounting for business combinations; and (iii) HCA failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties concerning its revenue growth rate.
On July 25, 2011, HCA announced disappointing second quarter 2011 results. On this news, HCA's stock fell $6.64 to close of $27.97. Then, on October 1, 2011, Barron's issued an article titled Where Did the $15.8 Billion Go?, which claimed HCA improperly accounted for two major acquisitions as recapitalizations causing HCA to overstate reported earnings and avoid taking significant charges which would have negatively impacted earnings. On this news, HCA fell to $18.81 on October 3, 2011.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 27, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.
While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/hca/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court unlikely to allow private prison to be sued
Headline Legal News |
2011/11/02 08:46
|
The Supreme Court seems unlikely to allow employees at a privately run federal prison to be sued by an inmate in federal court.
The high court on Tuesday heard arguments by lawyers from the GEO Group, formerly known as Wackenhut Corrections Corp. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Richard Lee Pollard could sue GEO officials for injuries he suffered while imprisoned in Taft, Calif.
But the company running the prison says their employees shouldn't be sued in federal court because prisoners are required to use state courts first.
Justices repeatedly questioned Pollard's lawyer about why his client did not file a state negligence lawsuit against GEO officials. Pollard's lawsuit will be dismissed if he can't sue in federal court, because the state statute of limitations has expired. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reluctant on plea bargains after sentencing
Legal News Digest |
2011/11/01 10:15
|
The Supreme Court seemed reluctant Monday to allow criminals to ask for a previously offered plea bargain after they've been sentenced, despite the inmates' claim of misconduct by their lawyers including neglecting to tell their clients that a deal had been offered.
Asking judges to go back and figure out on appeal whether a suspect would have taken a plea deal before a trial, whether a judge would have accepted it, whether a prosecutor would have withdrawn it or whether the negotiations would have fallen apart is simply unworkable, said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often a tiebreaker votes on divisive issues.
The high court heard appeals from two different sets of prosecutors who had their cases overturned by appeals courts that said criminals were denied their Sixth Amendment effective assistance of counsel because of mistakes during plea negotiations. The Supreme Court has amplified that by saying that counsel's representation must not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there must not be a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.
In the first case, Anthony Cooper's conviction for shooting a woman in the thigh and buttocks after missing a shot to her head was overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati because his lawyer gave him bad advice. His lawyer told him not to take a plea offer that could have had him out of prison in four years, thinking that there could not be a finding that Cooper intended to murder his victim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class Action Lawsuit
Legal Business |
2011/10/31 08:40
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on October 26, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. common stock between August 27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive (the Class Period).
The action charges OmniVision and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that the Company had concealed the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple Inc. (Apple) to supply imaging sensors for Apple's celebrated iPhone.
OmniVision is a designer and manufacturer of image sensors that are used in digital cameras to convert optical images into electronic signals. OmniVision is one of the leading suppliers of complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors (CMOS) sensors used in mobile telephones. The Complaint alleges that OmniVision failed to disclose that: (a) it had lost its lucrative, high-profile, and exclusive contract with Apple; (b) competition was eroding its leadership position in the smartphone industry; (c) delays in the development of its 8-megapixel product line were threatening its prospects; and (d) it lacked a reasonable basis for its statements about its bright prospects in the smartphone market.
On August 25, 2011, OmniVision announced its results for the fiscal first quarter of 2012 and provided guidance for the fiscal second quarter of 2012 that was well below analyst expectations. The Company also disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-megapixel product line. Based on the Company's disappointing guidance, analysts recognized that OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new, fifth generation iPhone--the iPhone 4S--set for release in the fall of 2011. As a result of these revelations, OmniVision's stock declined $7.55 per share, or 30.4 percent, to close at $17.27 per share on August 26, 2011 on extraordinary trading volume.
On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.
On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.
If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm.
Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country's premier law firms representing institutional investors in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for more than 45 years, seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
