|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Press Release |
2012/03/01 10:21
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd 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 CNOOC Limited American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) during the period between January 27, 2011 and September 16, 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/cnooc/. 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 CNOOC and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CNOOC is China’s biggest offshore state oil company. CNOOC co-owns the Penglai 19-3 (“PL 19-3”) oilfield in northern Bohai Bay with ConocoPhillips China Inc. (“ConocoPhillips”) as its operator.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, CNOOC’s ADSs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of US$270.64 per ADS on April 4, 2011.
On June 4, 2011, an oil spill occurred at the PL 19-3 oilfield. A second spill occurred at the PL 19-3 oilfield on June 17, 2011. The complaint alleges that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips failed to disclose the spills when they occurred. However, despite CNOOC’s attempts to conceal the news, news of the spills began to leak into the market. On July 5, 2011, the State Oceanic Administration (“SOA”), China’s coastal regulator, officially acknowledged the spills had occurred. Thereafter, CNOOC downplayed the extent of the damage done by the oil spills and the impact it would have on CNOOC’s operations. On September 2, 2011, the SOA announced that it had ordered CNOOC and ConocoPhillips to immediately suspend all oil production at the PL 19-3 oilfield. On September 6, 2011, it was announced that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips would establish a Bohai Bay fund to address the environmental impact of the oil spills. On this news, CNOOC’s ADSs declined US$9.39 per ADS on September 6, 2011. Then, on September 18, 2011, it was announced that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips would establish a second Bohai Bay fund. On this news, CNOOC’s ADSs declined another US$6.85 per ADS on September 19, 2011.
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 was not in compliance with environmental laws and regulations; (b) as news of the oil spills emerged, the Company concealed the extent and severity of the oil spills; (c) as news of the oil spills emerged, the Company downplayed its responsibility to effect the cleanup of the oil spills as it portrayed itself as being the “non-operator” of the oilfield; (d) the Company improperly accounted for its contingent liabilities in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (e) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s operations and its expected oil production.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of CNOOC ADSs 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.
www.rgrdlaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back Pay Award Reduced Based on Laches in Class Action
Law Blogs |
2012/03/01 10:21
|
The Indiana Supreme Court recently decided what could prove to be a landmark decision on the doctrine of laches in Richmond State Hospital v. Brattain, Cause No. 49S02-1106-CV-327. If you are dealing with a case involving laches, this decision is a must read.
In this class action, employees who worked in "state institutions" claimed that the State had breached its contractual duty to provide equal pay for equal work by requiring that they work 40 hours per week for the same pay as employees in "state offices" who were only required to work 37.5 hours per week. The trial court found in favor of the employees and awarded 20 years of back pay, amounting to $42,422,788. The Court of Appeals reduced that award substantially by limiting back pay to a few months for merit employees but for non-merit employees, affirmed a recovery for 20 years of damages or about $18.7 million.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and then failed to reach a majority on numerous issues, dividing 2-2. Justice Sullivan did not participate, presumably because he served as State Budget Director during the period in dispute. As a result of the 2-2 split, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals on the merit employees' claims. As to the non-merit employees, the Supreme Court was able to reach a consensus, largely in favor of the State's laches defense.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/Back-Pay-Award-Reduced-Based-on-Laches-in-Class-Action
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Houston Auto Accident & Insurance Claims Law Firm
Law Firm News |
2012/03/01 10:21
|
If you've been involved in an auto accident caused by speeding, drunk driving (DWI), unsafe lane changes, following too closely, running red lights & stop signs, reckless truck drivers, or any other cause, we ask you to keep the following in mind: Insurance companies are in the business of making money, not paying policies. If the insurance company is giving you the run-around, call The Salazar Law Firm today.
If you've been injured in an accident, your claim may be significantly weakened if you don't take the right steps. Get medical treatment for your pain and injuries as soon as possible. Insurance companies pay close attention to “lapses in treatment” and whether or not you sought treatment immediately after the accident happened.
The Salazar Law Firm is a Houston based firm that has expertise in defending clients facing auto accidents and insurance claims. Their attorneys understand the physical, emotional, and financial burden an car accident or personal injury can be on an individual and their families. Their goal is to lessen the stress for their clients by managing the complex procedures with insurance companies, medical facilities, and opposing insurance defense lawyers. They have the experience you need and give the attention you deserve. Visit http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sidley Austin LLP Expands Project Finance Practice in Washington D.C.
Press Release |
2012/02/29 09:42
|
Sidley Austin LLP is pleased to announce that Timothy J. Moran will join the firm as a partner in the project finance practice in Washington, D.C. Mr. Moran's practice focuses on infrastructure project development and finance, where he represents lenders, project sponsors and developers in the development, financing, acquisition and sale of infrastructure projects located in North America, Central and South America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Mr. Moran's projects include alternative energy (wind, solar and biomass), coal and natural gas-fired facilities, natural gas storage facilities, LNG projects and natural gas pipelines.
"Tim's level of experience in project finance will be instrumental as we continue to expand the firm's ability to represent clients on what are certainly going to be important undertakings in the global economy," said Carter G. Phillips, Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Sidley, and a member of the firm's Management Committee. "He has a highly respected and very dynamic project finance practice that fits perfectly with the firm's significant expansion of its energy practice, as well as our enhancement of project finance capabilities. Tim's practice will be a wonderful complement to our newly established Houston office."
"Sidley provides an ideal opportunity for me to grow my practice on an international platform that is already successful but very well equipped for new opportunities," said Mr. Moran. "I look forward to working with the project finance team in Washington, New York, Houston and Los Angeles, as well as Sidley's highly regarded energy and environmental lawyers in Washington and Houston."
Mr. Moran represents lenders in construction and term financings and equity investors in private placements and tax-based equity investments. Mr. Moran is currently representing both developers and lenders in the structuring and financing of wind, solar and mid-stream oil and gas projects, to be located in the U.S., Latin America and Canada.
With respect to developers, Mr. Moran has represented both large and small sponsors in the development and financing of infrastructure projects throughout North America, Central America, South America, China and numerous countries in Europe and Africa. He has also represented developers in connection with bids on more than 90 major power facilities, acquisitions of individual and portfolios of power facilities, and of gas storage facilities and pipelines. Mr. Moran has also represented developers and lenders in asset sales, as well as whole and partial sales of interests in energy-related companies.
www.rubenstein.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
Opinions |
2012/02/28 10:23
|
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some circumstances.
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative?-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
