|
|
|
Pacman Jones pleads guilty to disorderly conduct
Court Line News |
2012/01/18 10:10
|
Cincinnati Bengals cornerback Adam Pacman Jones pleaded guilty Wednesday to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct.
Jones entered the plea in Hamilton County Municipal Court just as his non-jury trial was scheduled to begin. A second misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest was dismissed in a plea agreement with prosecutors.
Judge Brad Greenberg ordered Jones to serve a year of probation, complete 50 hours of community service and pay a $250 fine plus court costs. Jones could have received a maximum jail sentence of 30 days.
Jones, 28, was accused in court documents of being disorderly, shouting profanities and trying to pull away as officers arrested him at a downtown bar in July.
At the time, Jones was on probation in Las Vegas in connection with a 2007 no contest plea to a strip club melee that left three people wounded. He was ordered in November to perform an additional 75 hours of community service for violating that probation with the Cincinnati arrest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court lets telemarketers be sued in federal court
Lawyer Media News |
2012/01/18 10:10
|
The Supreme Court is keeping telemarketers and other businesses on the hook for nuisance phone calls, letting those annoyed by the disruptions sue in federal as well as state courts.
The high court's decision Wednesday involves a lawsuit claiming a debt collector harassed a man with repeated recorded calls.
Marcus Mims of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said he kept getting the calls from Arrow Financial Services LLC, which was trying to collect a student loan debt for Sallie Mae. He sued for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, passed by Congress to ban invasive telemarketing practices.
Mims' lawsuit was thrown out by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that Congress did not explicitly give permission for federal lawsuits in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, although the law does say people can file in state courts. Other federal courts ruled differently and let lawsuits move forward.
The high court said in a unanimous opinion that federal lawsuits are allowed under the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Law Firm of Levi Korsinsky, LLP Launches an Investigation
Lawyer Media News |
2012/01/17 12:37
|
Levi amp; Korsinsky is investigating potential claims on behalf of purchasers of Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporationnbsp; securities concerning possible violations of federal securities laws.
On January 5, 2012, Integra LifeSciences announced that it received a warning letter from the United States Food and Drug Administration related to quality systems and compliance issues found at its collagen manufacturing facility located in Plainsboro, New Jersey in August 2011. The Company also announced it expects total revenues in the fourth quarter to be approximately 3% below the low end of previously issued guidance. Upon this news, Integra LifeSciences stock fell 20% on January 6, 2012 to close at $24.49 per share; the stock continues to fall, closing on January 10, 2012 at $23.22 per share.
If you own Integra LifeSciences stock and wish to obtain additional information about the investigation and your legal rights, please contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit http://www.zlk.com/integra-lifesciences-holdings-iart.html .
Levi amp; Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud and represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder litigation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
www.zlk.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Upholds Burlington Man's Murder Conviction
Legal News |
2012/01/16 09:43
|
The Iowa Supreme Court has overturned an appeals court ruling that threw out the conviction of a Burlington man in his ex-wife's death.
The court ruled Friday that even if the trial court erred in refusing to let a physical therapist testify, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Dennis Richards was convicted of murder and arson after authorities found Cyd Richards strangled to death in a burning house in 2009.
The appeals court reversed the conviction because the trial court excluded testimony from a physical therapist who would have suggested Richards wasn't strong enough to strangle his ex-wife. A new trial was ordered.
The attorney general's office sought the Supreme Court review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Press Release |
2012/01/16 09:43
|
Ryan amp; Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in 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 alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) 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; (4) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (5) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan amp; Maniskas, LLP toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/che. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Legal Marketing |
2012/01/16 09:43
|
Robbins Geller Rudman amp; 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 Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Netflix, Inc. common stock during the period between December 20, 2010 and October 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/netflix. 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 Netflix and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netflix is a subscription service that streams television shows and movies over the Internet, and in the United States subscribers can have DVDs delivered to their homes.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and its contracts with content providers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Netflix’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011. While Netflix stock was inflated (partially by Netflix buying back its own stock), Company insiders were selling 388,661 shares of their own Netflix stock for proceeds of $90.2 million.
On September 15, 2011, Netflix updated its third quarter 2011 guidance and revealed that it had lost a million subscribers due to its recently announced price increases becoming effective. On this news, Netflix stock fell nearly $40 per share to close at just under $170 per share. On September 19, 2011, the Company announced that, in an effort to offset skyrocketing costs and rapidly defecting customers, the Company would begin charging separately for its two services and had raised prices as much as 60%. Netflix stock dropped to $130 per share on this news. Then, on October 24, 2011, Netflix issued its third quarter 2011 shareholder letter, which reported a net loss of 810,000 U.S. subscribers, translating into a cumulative loss of 5.5 million subscribers. The subsequently filed Form 10-Q revealed that Netflix’s obligations for content over the coming years had skyrocketed to $3.5 billion, with $2.8 billion due within three years. These disclosures caused Netflix stock to collapse from $118.84 per share on October 24, 2011 to $80.86 per share on October 27, 2011, a 32% decline in three days and a 73% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) Netflix had short-term contracts with content providers and defendants were aware that the Company faced the choice of renegotiating the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates or not renewing them at all; (b) content providers were already demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically alter Netflix’s business; (c) defendants recognized that Netflix’s pricing would have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be incurring; and (d) Netflix was not on track to achieve the earnings forecasts made by and for the Company for 2011.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Netflix 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. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
