|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal judge blocks Calif. low-carbon fuels rule
Legal Business |
2011/12/30 13:19
|
California officials say they will ask a federal judge to stay his ruling that blocks the state from enforcing the first-in-the-nation mandate for cleaner, low-carbon fuels.
In a decision issued Thursday, Fresno-based U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence O'Neill said the low-carbon fuel rules favor biofuels produced in the state. He said that violates the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause by discriminating against crude oil and biofuels producers located outside California.
California Air Resources Board spokesman Dave Clegern disagreed, saying the fuel rule is "an evenhanded standard that encourages the use of cleaner low carbon fuels by regulating fuel-providers in California."
He said the board plans to ask the judge to stay the ruling, and appeal if necessary to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Out-of-state fuels producers hailed the decision as a win for California drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Files Securities Fraud Class Action
Legal Business |
2011/12/29 09:49
|
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.
http://www.rigrodskylong.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court upholds convictions in Fort Dix plot
Legal Business |
2011/12/28 10:35
|
A federal appeals panel on Wednesday upheld the convictions and sentences of five Muslim men accused of planning to attack Fort Dix or other military bases, though it threw out a charge against one defendant.
The main issue was prosecutors' use of wiretaps obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a part of the Patriot Act aimed largely at gathering foreign intelligence.
The recordings were a major piece of a 2½-month trial for the five men, all Muslim immigrants who grew up in the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia.
The men — Mohamad Shnewer, Serdar Tatar, and brothers Dritan, Eljvir and Shain Duka — were arrested in May 2007. In 2008, a federal jury in Camden, N.J., convicted them of conspiring to kill U.S. military personnel at Fort Dix. All but Tatar are serving life terms.
Defense lawyers said it was unconstitutional to use the recordings in a domestic criminal case and that it may have been impossible to convict the men without the evidence.
But in a unanimous ruling written by Judge Marjorie O. Rendell, a three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The challenged search "was conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on a duly authorized statute," and therefore admissible at trial, Rendell wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
