|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Legal Business |
2012/02/28 10:21
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of the securities of TranS1 Inc. between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
TranS1 is a medical device company that designs, develops and markets products that implement its proprietary surgical approach to treat degenerative conditions of the spine affecting the lower lumbar region. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and certain of its executive officers misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations and financial performance, including that: (i) the Company was not in compliance with federal healthcare fraud and false claim statutes; (ii) the Company engaged in improper reimbursement practices; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (iv), as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
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 TranS1 securities between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court tosses Armenian payments law
Legal Business |
2012/02/24 09:55
|
A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a novel and controversial California law that allowed descendants of 1.5 million Armenians who perished in Turkey nearly a century ago to file claims against life insurance companies accused of reneging on policies.
The move came when a specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously tossed out a class action lawsuit filed against Munich Re after two of its subsidiaries refused to pay claims.
The ruling, written by Judge Susan Graber, said the California law trampled on U.S. foreign policy — the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
The California Legislature labeled the Armenian deaths as genocide, a term the Turkish government vehemently argued was wrongly applied during a time of civil unrest in the country.
The court noted the issue is so fraught with politics that President Obama studiously avoided using the word genocide during a commemorative speech in April 2010 noting the Armenian deaths.
The tortured legal saga began in 2000 when the California Legislature passed a law enabling Armenian heirs to file claims with insurance companies for policies sold around the turn of the 20th century. It gave the heirs until 2010 to file lawsuits over unpaid insurance benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court seems split on double jeopardy question
Court News |
2012/02/23 09:46
|
The Supreme Court seemed divided Wednesday on whether to allow an Arkansas man to be retried on murder charges even though a jury forewoman said in open court that they were unanimously against finding him guilty.
Alex Blueford of Jacksonville, Ark., was charged in July 2008 in the death of 20-month-old Matthew McFadden Jr. Blueford testified at trial that he elbowed the boy in the head by accident. Authorities say the child was beaten to death.
Blueford's murder trial ended in a hung jury. The jury forewoman told the judge before he declared a mistrial that the jury voted unanimously against capital murder and first-degree murder. The jury deadlocked on a lesser charge, manslaughter, which caused the mistrial.
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled last year that Blueford should be retried on the original charges. But Blueford's lawyers want justices to bar a second trial on capital and first-degree murder charges, saying that would violate Fifth Amendment protections preventing someone from being tried twice for the same crime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY court decision bolsters anti-fracking movement
Headline Legal News |
2012/02/23 09:46
|
A New York court decision has bolstered a movement among towns determined to prevent the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas within their borders.
A state Supreme Court justice on Tuesday upheld the town of Dryden's August 2011 zoning amendment banning gas drilling. Denver-based Anschutz Exploration Corporation, which has spent $5.1 million leasing and developing 22,000 acres in Dryden, about 40 miles southwest of Syracuse, had argued state law trumped the ban.
More than 50 New York communities have enacted gas-drilling bans. Binghamton attorney Helen Slottje, who helps draft such laws, says the ruling should embolden towns considering local bans.
"We think it's a terrific vindication of the town's right to home rule and to decide their future," Slottje said Wednesday. "It really should give the green light to communities that want to proceed down this route."
Albany attorney Tom West, who represented Anschutz, said the trial-level state court decision is likely to be appealed to the mid-level Appellate Division and, if necessary, to the state Court of Appeals.
"We remain confident in our position that municipalities cannot ban natural gas drilling in New York state," West said.
Another challenge of a municipal gas-drilling ban is pending in Otsego County, where Cooperstown Holstein Corp. sued the town of Middlefield over a ban similar to Dryden's. The lawsuit says the landowner has leased nearly 400 acres to a gas-drilling company and the ban would block the economic benefits of the arrangement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay marriage on hold in California
Court Watch |
2012/02/22 09:54
|
Same-sex marriage was on hold in California after opponents petitioned a federal appeals court Tuesday to review a split decision by three of its judges that struck down a voter-approved measure that limited marriage to a man and woman.
Lawyers for the religious and legal groups asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the 2-1 decision that declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians.
If they had not sought reconsideration, the three judges could have ordered the ruling to take effect in another seven days, clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume in the state.
Instead, same-sex marriages will remain on hold at least until the 9th Circuit decides to accept or reject the rehearing petition. The court does not face a deadline for doing so.
"This gives the entire 9th Circuit a chance to correct this anomalous decision by just two judges overturning the vote of seven million Californians," said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the Protect Marriage coalition.
Legal experts said supporters of the ban could be exhausting all their options before trying to take the case to the Supreme Court. Some experts said the 9th Circuit does not often reverse the decisions of member judges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
