|
|
|
Class-action lawsuit has been filed against infrastructure products
Law Firm News |
2011/06/20 08:17
|
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against infrastructure products maker Armtec Infrastructure Inc. alleging the company broke securities laws when it instituted a dividend, later to cancel it after it became unsupportable by earnings.
The suit filed in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of investors who bought shares between March 30 and June 8 alleges that Armtec should have known when it raised capital in the public market that it did not have sufficient earnings to pay dividends.
Through this class action, we hope to determine precisely what the defendants knew about Armtec's financial results when Armtec raised more than $50 million from investors, lawyer Jay Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP said in a statement.
Armtec shares plummeted earlier this month after the Ontario-based announced a widening of its first-quarter loss and the planned suspension of the 40 cent per share dividend. The dropped 22 cents or six per cent to $3.43 in early trading Friday on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Class action lawsuits must be certified by a judge in order to proceed. None of the allegations against Armtec have been proven in court.
In a statement issued late Friday, Armtec said it was confident that there are no grounds for a lawsuit to succeed.
If, however, this suit proceeds, Armtec will defend it vigorously based on, amongst other things, Armtec's disclosure of the risk factors associated with its business and to the payment of a dividend.
The Guelph-based company, which makes construction materials such as precast concrete and tubing, said business was hurt by an unusually late and wet spring across the country during the quarter and ended up with a payout significantly in excess of free cash flow.
The company said it had to meet certain terms in its credit facilities and meet earnings tests on senior notes to be permitted to pay dividends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chandler steps down as head of Del. Chancery Court
Headline Legal News |
2011/06/20 04:22
|
William Chandler III never realized his young man's dream of becoming a university professor, yet he has managed to pass on plenty of lessons to students of American law and business.
Chandler, 60, is retiring this week as head of Delaware's Court of Chancery, which rules over corporate law in a state that is the legal home to more than half of all publicly traded U.S. companies, including about two-thirds of the Fortune 500.
Chandler's decision to join a Silicon Valley-based law firm, where he will focus on advising corporate clients and working behind the scenes on litigation strategy, comes after 26 years on the bench, including eight years as a vice chancellor on the five-member court and 14 as chancellor.
But Chandler, who also served as a Superior Court judge before being appointed a vice chancellor, never envisioned himself wearing a black robe.
After obtaining his law degree from the University of South Carolina and clerking for a federal judge in Wilmington, Chandler went to Yale University law school with his eye on a master's degree and a dream of becoming a professor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court limits Wal-Mart sex bias case
Legal Business |
2011/06/20 04:22
|
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of women who work there.
The court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages.
Now, the handful of women who brought the lawsuit may pursue their claims on their own, with much less money at stake and less pressure on Wal-Mart to settle.
The justices divided 5-4 on another aspect of the ruling that could make it much harder to mount similar class-action discrimination lawsuits against large employers.
Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the court's conservative majority said there needs to be common elements tying together literally millions of employment decisions at once.
But Scalia said that in the lawsuit against the nation's largest private employer, That is entirely absent here.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court's four liberal justices, said there was more than enough uniting the claims. Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores, Ginsburg said.
Business interests lined up with Wal-Mart while civil rights, women's and consumer groups have sided with the women plaintiffs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action
Headline Legal News |
2011/06/20 04:21
|
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann amp; Bernstein, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Longtop Financial Technologies Limited (“Longtop” or the “Company”) (NYSE:LFT - News) on the New York Stock Exchange between October 25, 2007 and May 17, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
If you purchased Longtop securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than July 22, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the litigation.
Longtop shareholders who wish to learn more about the actions and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff may visit Lieff Cabraser’s website at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/securities-investor-fraud/case/473/longtop-financial-technologies-limited-securities-class-litigation or contact Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.
Background on the Longtop Securities Class Litigation
The actions are brought against Longtop and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Longtop, headquartered in Beijing, China, designs, develops, and delivers software solutions and information technology services to the financial services industry in China.
The actions allege that during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented and omitted material information regarding Longtop’s financial condition and prospects. On April 26, 2011, Citron Research issued a report raising serious issues with Longtop’s reported financial results, accounting practices, and operations. In response to the report, the price of Longtop’s shares fell significantly, closing at $17.73 per share on April 27, 2011.
Following the publication of the Citron Research report, Longtop hosted a conference call with investors and analysts during which its senior management denied the allegations in the report. On May 9, 2011, Citron published a second report entitled “Longtop Financial (NYSE:LFT - News) Final Proof of Undisclosed Related Party Transactions.” In response to the report, the price of Longtop shares fell another $1.67 per share, or 8.3 percent, to close at $18.54 on May 9, 2011.
On May 17, 2011, NYSE Regulation, Inc. halted trading in Longtop shares pending an announcement by the Company. Two days later, on May 19, 2011, Longtop issued a press release stating that it would not announce its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2011 results on May 23, 2011 as previously scheduled.
On May 23, 2011, Longtop issued a press release announcing that its independent auditor, Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. (“DTT”), and its Chief Financial Officer, defendant Derek Palaschuk, had resigned. According to the release, Deloitte stated in its resignation letter that it was resigning “as the result of, among other things: (1) the recently identified falsity of the Company's financial records in relation to cash at bank and loan balances (and possibly in sales revenue); (2) the deliberate interference by certain members of Longtop management in DTT's audit process; and (3) the unlawful detention of DTT's audit files. DTT further stated that DTT was no longer able to rely on management's representations in relation to prior period financial reports, that continued reliance should no longer be placed on DTT's audit reports on the previous financial statements, and DTT declined to be associated with any of the Company's financial communications in 2010 and 2011.” In addition, Longtop revealed that the Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced an investigation regarding related matters.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann amp; Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.
Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last eight consecutive years.
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm’s representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to hear Montana dams lawsuit
Headline Legal News |
2011/06/19 08:23
|
The Supreme Court is entering a $40 million dispute between an energy company and Montana that could turn on the experiences of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
The justices said Monday they will hear an appeal from PPL Montana of a state court decision ordering the company to pay $40 million in rent for placing its hydroelectric dams in riverbeds owned by the state.
The ownership of the waterways turns on whether they were navigable when Montana became a state in 1889. Both the company and the state base part of their argument on the journey of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark more than 200 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
