The Firm’s creditors’ rights expertise also includes such areas as foreclosures and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure; appointment of receivers; replevin, garnishment and attachment proceedings, pre-judgment and post-judgment; suits on guaranties, Uniform Commercial Code issues, and other commercial litigation matters.
Our attorneys help individuals, consumers, business investors and small businesses file for bankruptcy protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code, whether it be a liquidation under Chapter 7 or a reorganization under Chapters 11 or 13. We strive to provide a high degree of service and personal care to each of our clients. Our philosophy is simple: provide competent and high quality bankruptcy services for a reasonable fee.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law is an Indianapolis based law firm. Their attorneys have substantial experience collecting monies owed to their business clients in Indiana state courts and in federal bankruptcy courts. The firm continues to focus on maximizing their client's recovery in an fast and cost-effective manner. Their goal is to provide high quality services and they have a lengthy record of success to show for it. Visit www.rbelaw.com
to see more.
Palm Beach Construction Law Attorney
High Quality Legal Representation
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm serves its clients by first comprehending the specific issues our clients face and then tailoring our representation to those specific needs. Construction law cases often involve legal, technical, engineering, design, constructability and scheduling issues. We speak the language of construction. We understand your business. We know how to read a set of plans. Our client service is based on the idea that the client should not be required to pay to bring us up to speed on the construction issues. Instead, we make it our business to be ahead of the learning curve.
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP today announced that two years after bringing a class action case against Securities America, Inc., its corporate parent Securities America Financial Corporation and Ameriprise Financial, Inc., over 2,000 investors throughout the U.S. are receiving checks totaling $80 million. Investors will recover an average of over $30,000 per person.
The distribution represents the last chapter of a lawsuit filed by Securities America customers who purchased private placement investments in Medical Capital Notes and Provident Royalties, which were both revealed to be Ponzi schemes. Girard Gibbs and associated counsel represented the investors and won final approval of the $80 million settlement in Federal District Court in Dallas, Texas on July 25, 2011.
“We are pleased that our clients will recover a substantial percentage of their losses within two years of the date this litigation got underway,” said Daniel Girard, senior partner at Girard Gibbs. “We commend our adversaries for coming to the settlement table in good faith and negotiating a fair compromise with all the affected investors.”
For more information, please access the firm’s web site at www.GirardGibbs.com.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Veolia Environnement S.A. American Depositary Shares during the period between April 27, 2007 and August 4, 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, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at email@example.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/veolia/. 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 Veolia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Veolia operates utility and public transportation businesses. The Company supplies drinking water, provides waste management services, manages and maintains heating and air conditioning systems, and operates rail and road passenger transportation systems.
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 Veolia was materially overstating its financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices; (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; (c) that Veolia failed to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the United States, and for Southern Europe; (d) that the Company’s revenues were being hampered by the renewal of some of its major concession contracts; and (e) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
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.
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 Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of HCA Holdings, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its March 9, 2011 initial public offering ("IPO").
The Complaint charges that HCA, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants omitted the following from the Registration Statement: (i) HCA improperly accounted for its prior business combinations in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial results to be materially misstated; (ii) HCA failed to maintain effective internal controls concerning accounting for business combinations; and (iii) HCA failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties concerning its revenue growth rate.
On July 25, 2011, HCA announced disappointing second quarter 2011 results. On this news, HCA's stock fell $6.64 to close of $27.97. Then, on October 1, 2011, Barron's issued an article titled "Where Did the $15.8 Billion Go?", which claimed HCA improperly accounted for two major acquisitions as recapitalizations causing HCA to overstate reported earnings and avoid taking significant charges which would have negatively impacted earnings. On this news, HCA fell to $18.81 on October 3, 2011.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 27, 2011, 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/hca/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com
A Memphis-based law firm with a large presence in Louisiana will expand into Texas through an acquisition announced today. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC will retain its name as it merges with Houston-based Spain Chambers.
Ranked the 73rd-largest law firm in the country before the merger, the expanded Baker Donelson will include 620 attorneys and advisors working in 17 offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and the District of Columbia.
The merger will help to retain and attract new clients, as large companies doing business across mutliple states look to consolidate their legal service providers, said Roy Cheatwood, managing shareholder of Baker Donelson's Louisiana offices.
"Many of our clients would ask us if we had a Texas presence, because if so, they would be interested in having us as their law firm there," said Cheatwood. "It's no surprise that many New Orleans firms, the firms we consider to be our major competition, have Houston offices."
While the Spain Chambers practice focuses primarily on litigation, energy, construction and the financial sector, Baker Donelson provides legal services to a broader range of industries, including banking, real estate, and health care. The merger will allow Baker Donelson to further expand its offerings, Cheatwood said.
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Hewlett-Packard Co. ("HP” or the "Company”) (NYSE: HPQ) during the period between November 22, 2010 and August 18, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period”).
If you have suffered a net loss for all transactions in HP common stock during the Class Period, you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a lead plaintiff by contacting Brower Piven at www.browerpiven.com, by email at email@example.com, by calling 410/415-6616, or at Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153. Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating securities and class action cases of over 60 years.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.
Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff no later than November 14, 2011 and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement and how much of a settlement to accept for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the Company during the Class Period. You are not required to have sold your shares to seek damages or to serve as a Lead Plaintiff.
The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company’s failure to disclose during the Class Period, contrary to its disclosure that webOS was going to play an integral role in the Company’s strategy going forward, including running on HP’s new TouchPad tablet PC as well as on all of the Company’s PCs by 2012, that webOS, the TouchPad and the PC business were not central to HP’s business model and webOS would not be integrated across the Company’s entire product line, that TouchPad hardware was inefficient, limiting the degree of effectiveness of the webOS operating system, and that HP’s business model was not working because the Company was unable to leverage its extensive portfolio and scale of products and services in a strategically beneficial manner.
According to the complaint, after, on August 18, 2011, HP announced disappointing third quarter fiscal 2011 financial results and lowered guidance for fiscal year 2011, and after HP announced several major shifts in its long-term business model, including that it "will discontinue operations for webOS devices, specifically the TouchPad and webOS phones,” the value of HP shares declined significantly.
If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class.