|
|
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Legal Business |
2012/01/18 10:09
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Chemed Corporation common stock during the period between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.
The complaint charges Chemed and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Chemed, through its subsidiaries, provides hospice care and repair and cleaning services in the United States. The Company operates in two segments: VITAS and Roto-Rooter.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the Company engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services for patients who did not qualify for hospice and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the U.S. government; (b) that a significant portion of the Company’s hospice enrollments, revenues and earnings were the direct result of defendants’ scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services; (c) that, in a complaint filed under seal, a former VITAS manager had accused the Company of engaging in a Company-wide scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (d) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (e) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (f) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
On November 16, 2011, a Bloomberg article entitled “Whistleblower Accuses Chemed Unit of Medicare HMO Conspiracy” disclosed that a former VITAS manager had accused Chemed of defrauding the federal government by conspiring with health insurers to enroll Medicare patients who were not dying into hospice. The article also discussed a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into fraudulent conduct by VITAS. In response to these announcements, shares of the Company’s stock fell $6.87 per share, or 11%, to close at $50.65 per share on November 16, 2011.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than March 12, 2012.
A “lead plaintiff” is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Chemed shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.
Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” in each of the last nine years.
You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(877) 779-1414
www.bernlieb.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Law Firm Adds Top Rated Malpractice Attorney
Legal Business |
2012/01/16 09:39
|
The Michigan personal injury law firm of Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. is proud to announce the addition of medical malpractice attorney Randall M. Blau to our team of already award winning, experienced Michigan medical malpractice lawyers!
Partner and attorney, Lawrence J. Buckfire stated, “We could not be more pleased to add such an extraordinary medical malpractice lawyer to our law firm. Randall Blau was a perfect fit for the law firm, meeting the highest standards and quality that not only we, but our clients, require and expect to be a part of our team. Randall is a respected and highly reputable attorney throughout the State of Michigan and we are proud to have Randy join our law firm as our Michigan medical malpractice lawyer.”
Mr. Blau has obtained millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements for his injured clients. He specializes in medical malpractice, birth injuries, nursing home neglect, wrongful death, and automobile negligence cases. He is a member of the Michigan Association for Justice, the Oakland County Bar Association and the State Bar of Michigan. Randy has been an invited speaker at a variety of legal seminars, an invited member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and has been consistently listed in Who's Who in Law throughout his career.
Randall M. Blau earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Kalamazoo College in 1993 and his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Detroit School of Law in 1996. He is admitted to practice law in state and federal courts throughout Michigan and has handled cases in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota and Florida. He has obtained numerous settlements that have been listed in the Top Ten Settlements of the Year for the State of Michigan multiple times during the last decade.
Prior to joining Buckfire & Buckfire, Randall was a partner with Neuman Anderson, P.C. and senior litigation attorney with Southfield-based Maddin, Hauser, Wartell, Roth & Heller, P.C. He is an active member of a number of charitable and nonprofit organizations, and currently resides in West Bloomfield with his wife and two sons.
Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. handles all accident and injury cases, including auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, wrongful death cases, medical malpractice lawsuits, nursing home neglect cases, slip and fall cases, dog bite attack cases, and all other personal injury matters throughout the State of Michigan. Our Michigan personal injury attorneys are known for their meticulous case preparation-an approach that results in major verdicts and settlements for their clients. For more information on our personal injury law firm, please feel free to call our office, toll free at (800) 606-1717. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas electoral maps at issue before Supreme Court
Legal Business |
2012/01/09 10:08
|
A federal law says states and localities with a history of discrimination cannot change any voting procedures without first getting approval from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington. Yet Texas is asking the Supreme Court to allow the use of new, unapproved electoral districts in this year's voting for Congress and the state Legislature.
The outcome of the high court case, to be argued Monday afternoon, could be another blow to a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. In 2009, the justices raised doubts about whether Southern states still should need approval in advance of voting changes more than 40 years after the law was enacted.
The case also might help determine the balance of power in the House of Representatives in 2013, with Republicans in a stronger position if the court allows Texas to use electoral districts drawn by the GOP-dominated Legislature.
The complicated legal fight over Texas' political maps arises from the state's population gain of more than 4 million people, most of them Latino or African-American, in the 2010 census, and involves federal district courts in Texas and Washington, as well as the Supreme Court. It has come to a head now because Texas needs to be able to use some maps to hold elections this year.
The state has so far failed to persuade three judges in Washington, including two appointees of Republican President George W. Bush, to sign off on new political maps adopted by the Legislature. The justices jumped into the case at Texas' request after judges in San Antonio who are hearing a lawsuit filed by minority groups drew their own political lines for use in the 2012 elections. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevada Supreme Court takes up foreclosure case
Legal Business |
2012/01/05 09:37
|
The Nevada Supreme Court weighed arguments Wednesday on whether U.S. Bank can foreclose on a Douglas County couple's home despite findings by a mediator that not all required documents were presented during mediation.
Lawyers involved in the case said the court's ruling could have wide repercussions on foreclosures in a state hard-hit by the collapse of the housing market.
Attorneys for Andrew and Lauretta Davis want justices to send the case back to Washoe County District Court for a hearing on whether documents handled by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, were signed by an authorized officer and whether they properly conveyed the Davis' mortgage from the now-defunct Ownit Mortgage Solutions to U.S. Bank.
The couple's attorneys claim MERS lacked the authority to assign the loan to the bank.
"The certification for this assignment was not produced," attorney Mark Mausert argued before six of the high court's seven justices. Chief Justice Nancy Saitta missed the session but is expected to listen to arguments before a ruling is handed down at a later date.
A lawyer for the lender countered that the arguments raised by the Davis' attorneys go beyond the scope of Nevada's Foreclosure Mediation program, and that disputes over the validity of documents should be addressed in a separate lawsuit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Files Securities Fraud Class Action
Legal Business |
2012/01/02 15:21
|
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. between February 17, 2011 and November 10, 2011, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is entitled Thaler v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 11-CV-9528 (S.D.N.Y.). The Complaint names IntraLinks and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.
If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/intralinks-il.
IntraLinks, together with its subsidiaries, provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for securely managing content, exchanging critical business information, and collaborating within and among organizations worldwide.
The Complaint asserts that during the Class Period, defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the positive statements concerning the Company’s business prospects, as well as the full year guidance provided by Defendants on February 17, 2011, were materially false and misleading because by end of the first quarter of 2011 a large Enterprise customer informed the Company that it was dramatically reducing its use of IntraLinks’ products going forward and that the Company would have to reducing its earnings expectations as a result. Despite their knowledge of the foregoing, however, defendants failed to disclose that their positive statements about the Company’s business prospects, or the financial guidance issued in February 2011, were no longer accurate in light of the reduced use of the Company’s products by the large Enterprise customer.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 4, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed 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.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
