|
|
|
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action
Topics in Legal News |
2011/10/17 10:04
|
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is investigating potential securities law violations as alleged in a securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Imperial Holdings, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering on or about February 7, 2011 through September 27, 2011, inclusive.
Imperial Holdings shareholders, or individuals with information relating to this investigation, who wish to learn more about the action should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.
Background on the Imperial Holdings Securities Class Litigation
The action is brought against Imperial Holdings, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the IPO for violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Imperial Holdings is a specialty finance company that focuses on providing premium financing for individual life insurance policies.
The action alleges that the Company’s registration statement and prospectus for the IPO, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that Imperial Holdings had engaged in wrongdoing with respect to its life insurance finance business that would expose the Company and certain of its employees to government investigations.
On September 27, 2011, Imperial Holdings announced that federal investigators had served the Company with a search warrant and that it and certain of its employees, including its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its President and Chief Operating Officer, were under investigation in connection with the Company’s life insurance business. In response to this announcement and news of the raid on the Company's headquarters, the price of Imperial Holdings stock declined from $6.30 per share to close at $2.19 per share on September 28, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last nine consecutive years. For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm’s representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court appears to favor Ala. death row inmate
Topics in Legal News |
2011/10/06 05:36
|
The tale of returned mail and a missed deadline might seem comical, if it did not involve a man trying to stave off execution. Supreme Court justices had harsh words Tuesday for lawyers who abandon their clients and a state legal system that does not seem overly concerned.
At the end of a lively hour of arguments, it appeared that the court would order a new hearing for Alabama death row inmate Cory Maples, who lost the chance to appeal his death sentence because of a mailroom mix-up at the venerable New York law firm Sullivan and Cromwell and the diffidence of a local court clerk.
Two Sullivan and Cromwell lawyers were pressing Maples' claim that his earlier legal representation was so bad that it violated the Constitution -- until they both left the firm without telling Maples or the Alabama courts.
Deadlines usually matter a lot at the Supreme Court, where a few years back a defendant who was late to file an appeal because the judge gave his lawyer the wrong date still lost his case. Another principle to which the court often holds dear is that it's tough luck for defendants whose lawyers make mistakes.
But Tuesday's case, perhaps because it involves the death penalty, was the rare instance when the court seemed prepared to grant some leeway on both counts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court seems divided over Miranda rights case
Topics in Legal News |
2011/10/06 03:36
|
The Supreme Court seemed split Tuesday on whether to require police to read Miranda rights to prison inmates every time they interrogate them about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court heard arguments from lawyers from the state of Michigan who want a federal appeals court decision overturning Randall Lee Fields' conviction thrown out.
Fields was serving a 45-day sentence in prison on disorderly conduct charges when a jail guard and sheriff's deputies from Lenawee County, Mich., removed him from his cell and took him to a conference room. The deputies, after telling him several times he was free to leave at any time, then questioned him for seven hours about allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor. Fields eventually confessed and was charged and convicted of criminal sexual assault.
Fields was then sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison but appealed the use of his confession, saying that he was never given his Miranda rights on the sexual assault charges.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out his confession and conviction, ruling that it is required that police read inmates their Miranda rights anytime they are isolated from the rest of the inmates in situations where they would be likely to incriminate themselves.
This case is another example of the courts' recent struggle to clearly define Miranda rights, which have been litigated since they first came into being in 1966. The courts require police to tell suspects in custody they have the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pa high court to meet in historic chamber
Topics in Legal News |
2011/09/19 23:50
|
Trial in a class-action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against blacks is set to begin in a Polk County District courtroom.
Earlier this month, a judge rejected the state's request to throw out the lawsuit against the state.
Judge Robert Blink disagreed with the state's argument that the case was too broad be legally viable. He said the state agreed years ago to certify the case for class action.
The trial is expected to last three weeks.
The lawsuit was filed in 2007 by 14 people who claim they were denied state positions because they are black. It's grown to cover an estimated 6,000 blacks who sought employment or promotions with the state since 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Mormon bishop pleads guilty to child sex abuse
Topics in Legal News |
2011/09/16 23:49
|
A former Mormon bishop and co-founder of a nonprofit group that helps women and children in Third World villages faces sentencing in November for sexually abusing children.
Lon Harvey Kennard, 69, from Heber City, Utah, pleaded guilty this week to three counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Each count involves a different victim, and carries a sentence of 5 years to life.
The victims were among six children the man and his wife adopted from Ethiopia, where the couple helped establish an orphanage.
The Associated Press isn't naming the man to protect the identity of the victims.
The couple's nonprofit organization provided services to destitute villages in Mexico, Central America, Africa and the Caribbean.
Kennard was initially charged with 43 counts stemming from abuse that began in 1995, around the time the defendant was bishop of his Latter-day Saints ward and one year after he and his wife started the nonprofit agency. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
