|
|
|
'Octomom' bankruptcy case thrown out of court
Headline Legal News |
2012/05/15 22:15
|
A judge threw out "Octomom" Nadya Suleman's bankruptcy claim Tuesday after she failed to file the proper paperwork to show she can't pay as much as $1 million in debt.
That means creditors can move to collect what they say they're owed, and a pending foreclosure can go ahead against the La Habra, Calif., house Suleman lives in with her 14 children, according to The Orange County Register.
Suleman's case was thrown out because she didn't file a dozen financial documents and statements required to prove bankruptcy. In her initial filing April 30, Suleman estimated that she owed as much as $1 million that she is unable to repay.
Suleman had sought protection from her debts under Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which means a court-appointed trustee would have liquidated her assets to pay off creditors before she is discharged from most of her debts. According to the filing, she owed money to more than 20 parties, including utility companies, her father and a Christian school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court's stance could spur immigration laws
Headline Legal News |
2012/04/30 09:23
|
Emboldened by signals that the U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law, legislators and activists across the country say they are gearing up to push for similar get-tough measures in their states.
"We're getting our national network ready to run with the ball, and saturate state legislatures with versions of the law," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration. "We believe we can pass it in most states."
That goal may be a stretch, but lawmakers in about a dozen states told The Associated Press they were interested in proposing Arizona-style laws if its key components are upheld by the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected in June on the Department of Justice's appeal that the law conflicts with federal immigration policy.
Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he was encouraged that several justices suggested during Wednesday's oral arguments that they are ready to let Arizona enforce the most controversial part of its law — a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action
Headline Legal News |
2012/03/16 10:28
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Nevsun Resources Ltd. between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Nevsun mines and explores for gold and base metals, such as copper and zinc. The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (a) Nevsun’s mining activities at the Bisha mine in Eritrea, Africa, produced a material amount of waste rock, rather than gold ore; (b) gold and gold ore from Bisha were materially less than estimated, and defendants knew or had reason to know this, based on data routinely collected from the mine; (c) Nevsun was progressing through the ore body at Bisha more quickly than planned, to maintain production at a rate that would not reveal to investors that the amount of gold was materially less than the Company’s estimate; (d) the Company was aware its resource model was materially defective because actual amounts of gold mined at Bisha did not reconcile with the Company’s previously disseminated estimate; and (e) Nevsun materially overstated its gold reserves at the Bisha mine.
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 Nevsun common stock between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, you have certain rights, and have 60 days from March 13, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.
www.howardsmithlaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Dept opposes Texas voter ID law
Headline Legal News |
2012/03/12 11:53
|
The Justice Department's civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.
Texas follows South Carolina as the second state in recent months to become embroiled in a court battle with the Justice Department over new photo ID requirements for voters.
Photo ID laws have become a point of contention in the 2012 elections. Liberal groups have said the requirements are the product of Republican-controlled state governments and are aimed at disenfranchising people who tend to vote Democratic — African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students.
Proponents of such legislation say the measures are aimed at combating voter fraud. But advocacy groups for minorities and the poor dispute that and argue there is no evidence of significant voter fraud.
In regard to Texas, "I cannot conclude that the state has sustained its burden" of showing that the newly enacted law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect, Thomas E. Perez, the head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said in a letter to the Texas secretary of state.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot has said the Obama administration is hostile to laws like the one passed last year in Texas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Class Action
Headline Legal News |
2012/01/10 09:55
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Camelot Information Systems Inc.nbsp; American Depositary Shares between July 21, 2010 and August 17, 2011, including those who acquired Camelot ADSs pursuant or traceable to the Company’s false and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued in connection with its July 21, 2010 initial public offering and December 10, 2010 Secondary Offering.
The complaint charges Camelot, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Offerings with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Camelot is a holding company that conducts business through its operating subsidiaries in China. The Company is a provider of enterprise application services and financial industry information technology services in China.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose negative trends in Camelot’s business, including with Camelot’s most important customers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Camelot ADSs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $26.73 per share on January 11, 2011.
On July 21, 2010, Camelot announced the pricing of its IPO of 13.3 million ADSs at $11.00 per ADS. Subsequently, on December 9, 2010, Camelot announced the pricing of its Secondary Offering of 7,160,206 ADSs by selling shareholders at $19.50 per ADS. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements issued in connection with the Offerings were inaccurate and misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
On August 15, 2011, Seeking Alpha published an article questioning several key components of Camelot’s business. This caused Camelot’s ADSs to drop to below $9 per share. Then on August 18, 2011, Camelot issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2011 unaudited financial results, including lower-than-expected guidance for fiscal 2011. On this news, Camelot’s ADSs dropped $2.24 per share to close at $6.32 per share on August 18, 2011, a one-day decline of 26%.
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) the Company’s IT professionals were not a competitive advantage to the Company and many were dissatisfied with Camelot, which would adversely affect Camelot’s ability to retain its customers; (b) the Company was suffering from undisclosed attrition of employees, which was having a negative impact on the Company’s ability to attract new customers; (c) Camelot did not have the large numbers of highly trained professionals at its disposal that it had represented; and (d) Camelot’s contract with its most important customer, IBM, was not as solid as represented, and would not be renewed on the same terms.
www.bernlieb.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme court won't let man appeal murder conviction
Headline Legal News |
2012/01/10 09:55
|
The Supreme Court won't let a man sentenced to prison for murder appeal his conviction despite his complaints that his window for further consideration was unfairly closed.
The high court on Tuesday upheld the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez.
Gonzalez appealed his conviction for murder and his 30-year sentence in 2006 but missed one of the state lower court appeals deadlines. The federal courts since then have refused to hear his appeal, saying he filed in federal court one month after the required one-year deadline.
The courts started counting from the day Gonzalez missed the state court deadline, but the inmate said they should have started counting after the Texas courts officially declared his case over.
The high court said that the lower courts had correctly calculated the deadline for Gonzalez to file. Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote that Gonzalez's one-year deadline to appeal to the federal court began when he missed the state court filing date. Since Gonzalez filed one month after that one-year cutoff, the judgment against him became final, she said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
