|
|
|
Court rules NY town's prayer violated Constitution
Legal Marketing |
2012/05/15 22:14
|
An upstate New York town violated the constitutional ban against favoring one religion over another by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity, a federal court of appeals ruled Thursday.
In what it said was its first case testing the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled the town of Greece, a suburb of Rochester, should have made a greater effort to invite people from other faiths to open monthly meetings. The town's lawyer says it will appeal.
From 1999 through 2007, and again from January 2009 through June 2010, every meeting was opened with a Christian-oriented invocation. In 2008, after residents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained, four of 12 meetings were opened by non-Christians, including a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha'i congregation.
Galloway and Stephens sued and, in 2010, a lower court ruled there was no evidence the town had intentionally excluded other faiths.
A town employee each month selected clerics or lay people by using a local published guide of churches. The guide did not include non-Christian denominations, however. The court found that religious institutions in the town of just under 100,000 people are primarily Christian, and even Galloway and Stephens testified they knew of no non-Christian places of worship there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Criminal Lawyers - Sydney criminal defence lawyers
Legal Marketing |
2012/02/28 10:27
|
a href=http://www.criminallaw.com.auSydney Criminal Lawyers/a are a team of professional, experienced and highly respected specialist criminal and traffic defence lawyers. With two offices located in Sydney's Downing Centre Courts, our team of attorneys consistently achieve outstanding results in different criminal cases throughout the NSW area. We are the only criminal law firm to offer an Accredited Specialist Guarantee which means we will represent you on all important court days by the very best criminal or traffic lawyer in our firm. Additionally, we offer a great fixed fee-no hidden costs for our clients who are on a budget. Sydney Criminal Lawyers is the only accredited criminal law firm to offer these fixed fees for a wide range of criminal law services. Our results speak for themselves and we are the legal experts here to defend for your freedom to get you back on the road and on with your life as soon as possible.
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, their attorneys have extensive experience in a wide range of criminal cases. With their comprehensive knowledge of drink driving, drug, and assault laws, their ability to defend their clients and win criminal cases have shown a proven track record. They care and understand how important a clean record is and will fight for their clients to secure favorable results. We have a winning attitude that will help ease your stresses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indianapolis Bankruptcy Law Firm - Riley Bennett Egloff, LLP
Legal Marketing |
2012/02/12 10:21
|
span style=font-weight: boldCreditor’s Rights/span
The Firm’s creditors’ rights expertise also includes such areas as foreclosures and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure; appointment of receivers; replevin, garnishment and attachment proceedings, pre-judgment and post-judgment; suits on guaranties, Uniform Commercial Code issues, and other commercial litigation matters.
span style=font-weight: boldDebt Relief/span
Our attorneys help individuals, consumers, business investors and small businesses file for bankruptcy protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code, whether it be a liquidation under Chapter 7 or a reorganization under Chapters 11 or 13. We strive to provide a high degree of service and personal care to each of our clients. Our philosophy is simple: provide competent and high quality bankruptcy services for a reasonable fee.
Riley Bennett amp; Egloff Law is an Indianapolis based law firm. Their attorneys have substantial experience collecting monies owed to their business clients in Indiana state courts and in federal bankruptcy courts. The firm continues to focus on maximizing their client's recovery in an fast and cost-effective manner. Their goal is to provide high quality services and they have a lengthy record of success to show for it. Visit a href=http://www.rbelaw.comwww.rbelaw.com/a to see more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Legal Marketing |
2012/01/16 09:43
|
Robbins Geller Rudman amp; Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Netflix, Inc. common stock during the period between December 20, 2010 and October 24, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/netflix. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Netflix and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netflix is a subscription service that streams television shows and movies over the Internet, and in the United States subscribers can have DVDs delivered to their homes.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and its contracts with content providers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Netflix’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011. While Netflix stock was inflated (partially by Netflix buying back its own stock), Company insiders were selling 388,661 shares of their own Netflix stock for proceeds of $90.2 million.
On September 15, 2011, Netflix updated its third quarter 2011 guidance and revealed that it had lost a million subscribers due to its recently announced price increases becoming effective. On this news, Netflix stock fell nearly $40 per share to close at just under $170 per share. On September 19, 2011, the Company announced that, in an effort to offset skyrocketing costs and rapidly defecting customers, the Company would begin charging separately for its two services and had raised prices as much as 60%. Netflix stock dropped to $130 per share on this news. Then, on October 24, 2011, Netflix issued its third quarter 2011 shareholder letter, which reported a net loss of 810,000 U.S. subscribers, translating into a cumulative loss of 5.5 million subscribers. The subsequently filed Form 10-Q revealed that Netflix’s obligations for content over the coming years had skyrocketed to $3.5 billion, with $2.8 billion due within three years. These disclosures caused Netflix stock to collapse from $118.84 per share on October 24, 2011 to $80.86 per share on October 27, 2011, a 32% decline in three days and a 73% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
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) Netflix had short-term contracts with content providers and defendants were aware that the Company faced the choice of renegotiating the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates or not renewing them at all; (b) content providers were already demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically alter Netflix’s business; (c) defendants recognized that Netflix’s pricing would have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be incurring; and (d) Netflix was not on track to achieve the earnings forecasts made by and for the Company for 2011.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Netflix common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Legal Marketing |
2011/11/15 09:00
|
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 District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Human Genome Sciences, Inc. between July 20, 2009 and November 11, 2010, inclusive. Also included are those who acquired shares in the July 28, 2009 public offering at $14 per share and in the December 2, 2009 public offering at $26.75.
The Complaint charges that HGSI and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements concerning Benlysta®, HGSI's potential new drug for the treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, a chronic, life-threatening autoimmune disease. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Benlysta was associated with suicide in clinical drug trials conducted by HGSI.
The Complaint alleges that when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted its analysis of Benlysta on the Internet on November 12, 2010, investors learned for the first time of the association between Benlysta and suicide in clinical trials, causing HGSI's common stock price to fall. Meanwhile, the Complaint alleges, during the Class Period, HGSI sold over 44 million shares of its common stock in public offerings at artificially inflated prices, receiving $850 million in net proceeds.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January 10, 2012, 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/humangenomesciences/, 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP Files a Class Action Lawsuit
Legal Marketing |
2011/10/31 08:37
|
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
