Murray Frank LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 12 Civ. 0672) on behalf of all individuals and institutions who purchased securities of GLG Life Tech Corporation during the period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011 (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements about or knew but failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s original equipment manufacturers were experiencing production issues that impacted the packaging and appearance quality of its products; (2) consumers were responding poorly to the Company’s AN0C and stevia products; and/or (3) the Company would not meet its earnings projections.
On October 6, 2011, GLG Life Tech issued a press release disclosing for the first time a negative outlook concerning its AN0C and stevia products. On the news, the Company’s stock price dropped by 42% from a close of $3.45 per share on October 5, 2011 to a close of $1.99 per share on October 6, 2011.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the period ending September 30, 2011. Revenue for the period was $1.7 million, versus revenue of $20.9 million for the same period in the previous year. EBITDA for the period was negative $8.8 million, versus EBITDA of $6.1 million for the same period in the previous year. Following its announcement of these disappointing results, the Company’s management declined to provide any further formal guidance on revenues, EBITDA, or capital expenditures. On the news, the Company’s stock price continued to drop, from a close of $2.32 per share on November 11, 2011 (the last trading day before the announcement) to a close of $2.01 on November 14, 2011.
If you purchased GLG Life Tech securities during the period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011, you may move the Court, not later than February 13, 2012, to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included in the class.
www.murrayfrank.com
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walter Energy, Inc. between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, inclusive.
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, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld 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/walterenergy/. 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 Walter and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walter, through its consolidated subsidiaries, mines and exports hard coking coal for the global steel industry.
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: (i) that the Company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced Walter’s coal production; (ii) that the Company’s commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter at first quarter sales prices would result in a material adverse effect on Walter’s average sales prices and operating results during the second quarter; (iii) that Walter was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (iv) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business prospects during the Class Period.
On August 3, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its operating results for its 2011 fiscal second quarter, the period ended June 30, 2011. For the quarter, the Company announced net income of $107.4 million, or $1.71 per diluted common share, significantly less than Wall Street estimates. Then, On September 21, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its attempt to “enhance” its historical statistical disclosure and its revisions to its 2011 second half sales expectations. In response to this announcement, the price of Walter common stock declined from $75.00 per share on September 20, 2011 to $66.25 on September 21, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Walter common stock 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.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Cablevision Systems Inc. common stock who purchased shares between February 16, 2011 and October 28, 2011, inclusive.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things: (i) that Cablevision was experiencing higher retention and advertising costs; (ii) that Cablevision was losing more video customers than expected, especially in the New York area -- the Company's main service area -- due to increased competition; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
If you purchased Cablevision common stock during the Class Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead plaintiff." A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later than March 26, 2012.
Any member of the purported 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. If you are a Cablevision investor and would like to discuss a potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at mfistel@holzerlaw.com, or mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of Collective Brands, Inc. common stock during the period between December 1, 2010 and May 24, 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/collectivebrands/. 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 Collective Brands and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collective Brands is the holding company for three lines of business: Payless ShoeSource (“Payless”), Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (“PLG”), and Collective Licensing. The Company was formerly known as Payless ShoeSource, Inc. and changed its name to Collective Brands in August 2007.
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, Collective Brands stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $23.44 per share on February 18, 2011.
On May 24, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted earnings per share expected by analysts. The Company further reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless domestic segment, offset by sales growth of 22.5% in PLG. On this news, Collective Brands stock collapsed $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 17%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s inventory level for Payless remained at excessively high levels and aging inventory for its Payless segment was a concern; (b) sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores were significantly worse than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and (c) the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s bloated inventory at significant discounts, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Collective Brands common stock 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.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against TranS1 Inc., and certain of its officers. The class action (7:12-cv-00023-F), filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased TranS1 securities during the period between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased TranS1 securities during the Class Period, you have until March 26, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529, toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
TranS1 designs, develops, and markets medical devices to treat degenerative disc disease affecting the lower lumbar region of the spine. The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, TranS1 made false and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was not in compliance with federal healthcare fraud and false claim statutes; (2) the Company engaged in improper reimbursement practices; (3) the Company lacked adequate
Hausfeld LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of those who sold HearUSA common stock between January 18, 2011 and July 31, 2011, inclusive. The lawsuit, filed January 18, 2012, seeks to pursue remedies against Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc. (“Siemens”) for violations of Sections 10(b), 9(a)(2) and 18(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78i(a)(2), and 78r(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. Siemens is engaged, in part, in the manufacture of hearing products, and HearUSA was involved in the distribution of Siemens’ hearing products. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and is captioned MTB Investment Partners, LP vs. Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc.
The complaint alleges that Siemens engaged in a fraudulent scheme to drive down the price of HearUSA common stock in an attempt to acquire HearUSA’s assets for less than their fair market value by, in part, filing false and misleading statements with the SEC. The result of Siemens’ false and misleading statements, according to the complaint, was to drive down the market price of HearUSA common stock from 90¢/share on January 18, 2011 to 35¢/share on July 28, 2011.
According to the complaint, Siemens made a number of false and/or misleading statements in its public filings which caused HearUSA stock to plummet. These public filings stated that Siemens at no point had the intention to acquire HearUSA, despite the fact that it had been in the advanced stages of a negotiated buyout process for HearUSA. The public filings further stated that Siemens, if it wanted to acquire HearUSA, could do so at no consideration to shareholders because of debts owed to Siemens by HearUSA. The complaint alleges that this assertion misrepresented the status and extent of the debt owed to Siemens by HearUSA and Siemens’ ability to acquire HearUSA pursuant to the credit agreement entered into between the two companies. The complaint alleges that, in making these statements, Siemens effectively told the market that HearUSA stock was worthless, and that the market responded accordingly.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, William Butterfield of Hausfeld LLP at (202)540-7200 or via email at wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com.
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Chemed Corporation between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.
The Complaint alleges that Chemed and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) Chemed billed Medicare for hospice services for ineligible patients and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the government; (ii) that a significant portion of the Company's revenues were the result of defendants' scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (iii) that, in a sealed complaint, a former VITAS manager accused Chemed of wrongfully enrolling ineligible patients in hospice; and (iv) Chemed's financial results were materially overstated.
On November 16, 2011, a Bloomberg article disclosed that a former VITAS manager had accused Chemed of defrauding the 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. On this news, shares of Chemed fell $6.87 to close at $50.65 per share.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 12, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.
While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/chemed/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com.
