|
|
|
CARRIER iQ, Inc. Sued in Class Action
Press Release |
2011/12/06 10:23
|
New York City based Horwitz, Horwitz amp; Paradis, Attorneys at Law and Los Angeles based Kiesel Boucher amp; Larson LLP announced this morning that they have filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Mountain View, California based CARRIER iQ, Inc. on behalf of a class comprised of all persons and entities who own an electronic device, including but not limited to, smartphones, feature phones, tablets, and electronic-readers (collectively, the Electronic Devices), in which CiQ's Mobile Intelligence software application is installed.
The class action complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that CiQ manufactures a software application that, unbeknownst to Class members, was embedded into a wide variety of Electronic Devices, including but not limited to, smartphones, feature phones, tablets, and electronic-readers, purchased by Class members over the past six years. Plaintiff further alleges that CiQ utilized its software application to illegally intercept, collect, and share the data and communications sent or received by Class members over their Electronic Devices in which CiQ's software application has been secretly installed for approximately six years.
More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that CiQ's software application enabled CiQ to illegally intercept and monitor all communications that are sent to, and received by, an Electronic Device in which CiQ's software is installed. CiQ's software does so by: (i) intercepting and recording all keystrokes depressed on the Electronic Devices; (ii) intercepting, reading and displaying the actual text of all text messages sent from, or received by, the Electronic Devices; and (iii) intercepting, reading and displaying all Internet browser searches conducted on private Wi-Fi networks
In commenting on the allegations of the Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff's attorney Paul O. Paradis remarked, The vast nature of CiQ's illegal interception activities and the fact that the Company's illegal activities were able to be conducted without detection for nearly 6 years is frightening. In the digital age in which we live, the revelation of CiQ's illegal electronic interception activities is a watershed moment for privacy advocates around the world and serves as an alarming wake up call to all of us who are concerned about protecting the privacy of confidential communications of any type. Attorney Paul Kiesel added, At this juncture of the litigation, it appears that in excess of 140 million class members were victimized by CiQ's illegal interception activities. That fact, in and of itself, is stunning.
Plaintiff alleges that CiQ's illegal interception and data collection and sharing activities violated both the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California's Invasion of Privacy Act, as well as other laws intended to protect Class member's privacy and property interests. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, restitution, punitive damages on behalf of himself and all Class members, as well as an injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing the illegal practices complained of in the Complaint.
If you have any information concerning practices complained of in the Class Action Complaint or would like further information regarding this nationwide class action, please contact Paul O. Paradis at 212-986-4500 or e-mail at pparadis@hhplawny.com or Paul Kiesel at 310-854-4444 or email at kiesel@kbla.com.
Horwitz, Horwitz amp; Paradis, Attorneys at Law, and Kiesel Boucher amp; Larson, LLP have been retained as two of the law firms to represent the Class. The attorneys at Horwitz, Horwitz amp; Paradis, Attorneys at Law, and Kiesel Boucher amp; Larson, LLP have extensive experience in prosecuting class action cases, and have been appointed as Lead Counsel in numerous major class actions by federal and state courts across the United States and have obtained major recoveries on behalf of injured parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: State prisoners count at home in redistricting
Legal Business |
2011/12/05 10:23
|
A state court ruled Friday that prisoners must be counted among voters back in their home neighborhoods rather than in upstate prisons for the purpose of redrawing state legislative districts, a likely blow to the slim Republican majority in New York’s Senate.
Although prisoners cannot vote, the decision means more voters will be counted as living in heavily Democratic New York City and other urban areas as part of the redistricting process, which is tied to the census. That would reduce the population upstate and likely result in fewer seats in the Assembly and Senate representing sparsely populated upstate areas where prisons are located.
The Senate’s Republican majority says it will appeal the ruling by a trial level judge in Albany.
The immediate practical result of the decision could be minor. The state redistricting commission is already redrawing legislative districts by following a 2010 law requiring prisoners to be counted in their latest home neighborhoods. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Assange can continue extradition fight
Headline Legal News |
2011/12/05 10:23
|
A British court Monday gave WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange permission to continue his legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex crimes allegations.
The decision means Assange does not face immediate deportation. British judges said Assange could apply to the Supreme Court to hear one specific point of his legal case — but there is no guarantee that the higher court will accept his request.
Assange's lawyers had argued that every European arrest warrant issued by police or prosecutors was flawed, because neither should be considered a judicial authority.
The High Court judges did not indicate whether they agreed with the argument, but said Assange's legal team should have the chance to ask the Supreme Court to grant them a hearing.
Assange seemed pleased by the ruling. Asked if it was a victory, he said yes. He had listened attentively to the hearing, frequently taking notes.
Assange now has 14 days to submit a written request to the Supreme Court, Assange's lawyer Gareth Peirce said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to hear suit over Cheney event arrest
Headline Legal News |
2011/12/05 10:23
|
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear an appeal from Secret Service agents who say they should be shielded from a lawsuit over their arrest of a Colorado man who confronted Vice President Dick Cheney.
The justices will review a federal appeals court decision to allow Steven Howards of Golden, Colo., to pursue his claim that the arrest violated his free speech rights. Howards was detained by Cheney's security detail in 2006 after he told Cheney of his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Howards also touched Cheney on the shoulder, then denied doing so under questioning. Appellate judges in Denver said the inconsistency gave the agents reason to arrest Howards.
Even so, the appeals court said Howards could sue the agents for violating his rights — an unusual twist that the agents and the Obama administration said conflicts with other appeals court decisions and previous high court rulings in similar cases.
Justice Elena Kagan is not taking part in the case, probably because she worked on it while serving in the Justice Department. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Legal Business |
2011/12/04 10:23
|
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman amp; Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Pain Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased PTIE securities during the period from February 3, 2011 through June 23, 2011. This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased PTIE securities during the Class Period, you have until January 31, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529, toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, PTIE made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts about a new drug, REMOXY. Specifically, PTIE failed to disclose that REMOXY was not approvable by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration due to chemistry, manufacturing, and control deficiencies that caused inconsistent results during laboratory tests.
On June 24, 2011, the Company announced that the Company had received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA on the New Drug Application for REMOXY. As a result of this revelation, PTIE's shares declined $3.94 per share or nearly 43%, to close at $5.30 per share on June 24, 2011.
On June 27, 2011, the Company disclosed that the FDA's Complete Response Letter raised concerns related to, among other things, the chemistry, manufacturing, and controls sections of the NDA for REMOXY. As a result of this revelation, PTIE's shares declined an additional $1.37 per share or nearly 26%, to close at $3.93 per share on June 27, 2011.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
