Nuove Class Actions e risarcimenti disponibili

[pietro66]

Nuove Class Actions e risarcimenti disponibili

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLASS ACTIONS
(date espresse in MESE / GIORNO / ANNO )


TITOLO - CLASS PERIOD(inizio) - CLASS PERIOD(termine) - TERMINE ULTIMO PER LA DOMANDA DI PARTECIPAZIONE COME “LEAD PLAINTIFF”

2 ACE Limited 05/30/2002 10/14/2004 12/17/2004
2 ACE Limited 2 10/28/2003 10/13/2004 12/17/2004
3 American International Group, Inc. 10/28/1999 10/13/2004 12/14/2004
4 Aon Corp. 10/31/2002 10/22/2004 12/24/2004
5 Apollo Group, Inc. 03/12/2004 09/14/2004 12/13/2004
6 Autobytel, Inc. 07/24/2003 10/20/2004 12/28/2004
7 AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. 08/06/2003 10/14/2004 12/27/2004
8 AXT, Inc. 02/06/2001 04/27/2004 12/14/2004
9 Chiron Corp. 07/23/2003 10/05/2004 12/13/2004
10 Chiron Corp. 2 01/12/2004 10/13/2004 12/13/2004
11 Concord Camera Corp. 08/14/2003 10/04/2004 11/08/2004
12 Converium Holding AG 12/11/2001 08/30/2004 12/03/2004
13 Digimarc Corporation 04/17/2002 07/28/2004 11/29/2004
14 Dobson Communications Corp. 05/19/2003 08/09/2004 12/21/2004
15 Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 01/13/2000 09/22/2004 11/22/2004
16 Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 2 10/16/2003 09/22/2004 11/22/2004
17 HiEnergy Technologies, Inc. 02/22/2002 07/08/2004 12/17/2004
18 IAC/InterActiveCorp 07/16/2001 08/03/2004 11/19/2004
19 IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. 11/20/2002 05/13/2004 11/08/2004
20 Infineon Technologies AG 03/13/2000 09/15/2004 11/29/2004
21 Intelligroup, Inc. 05/01/2001 09/24/2004 12/13/2004
22 Lattice Semiconductor Corp. 04/22/2003 04/19/2004 11/08/2004
23 Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. 10/15/1999 10/14/2004 12/14/2004
24 Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 11/11/2002 09/17/2004 11/22/2004
25 Merck & Co., Inc. 10/30/2003 09/29/2004 11/30/2004
26 Merck & Co., Inc. 2 11/05/2003 09/29/2004 11/30/2004
27 MetLife, Inc. 04/05/2000 10/19/2004 12/20/2004
28 Nektar Therapeutics 03/04/2004 08/04/2004 11/02/2004
29 New York Community Bancorp Inc. 06/27/2003 05/09/2004 11/23/2004
30 Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. 06/17/2004 09/08/2004 11/22/2004
31 Remec Inc. 09/08/2003 09/08/2004 11/29/2004
32 Rogue Wave Software, Inc. 12/19/2003 12/19/2003 11/12/2004
33 SOURCECORP, Inc. 05/07/2003 10/27/2004 12/31/2004
34 Star Gas Partners, L.P. 07/25/2000 10/18/2004 12/20/2004
35 Stonepath Group, Inc. 05/07/2003 09/20/2004 11/23/2004
36 Team Telecom International Ltd. 05/15/2001 11/14/2002 11/12/2004
37 The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. 11/05/2003 10/13/2004 12/14/2004
38 Tommy Hilfiger Corp. 11/03/1999 09/24/2004 11/29/2004
39 United Rentals, Inc. 10/23/2003 08/30/2004 11/29/2004
40 Valassis Communications, Inc. 04/25/2002 10/23/2002 12/21/2004
41 Zix Corp. 10/30/2003 05/04/2004 11/02/2004


Risarcimenti disponibili al 31 ottobre 2004
(date espresse in MESE / GIORNO / ANNO )


Case Name - Claim Deadline - Class Period Start - Class Period End - Total Settlement

AES Corp. 03/28/2005 07/27/2000 11/08/2002 $5,000,000
Alloy, Inc. 12/20/2004 03/16/2001 01/23/2003 $6,750,000
AMF Bowling Inc. 12/31/2004 11/04/1997 02/26/1999 $12,000,000
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 01/28/2005 11/08/1999 07/25/2001 $2,100,000
Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. 03/07/2005 03/15/2000 11/19/2002 $16,500,000
AON Corporation 12/31/2004 05/04/1999 08/06/2002 $7,250,000
Ashworth, Inc. 12/21/2004 09/04/1997 07/15/1998 $15,250,000
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. 01/05/2005 01/27/2000 08/24/2000 $12,500,000
BristolMyers Squibb Co. 01/31/2005 10/19/1999 03/10/2003 $300,000,000
CareScience, Inc. 12/10/2004 06/28/2000 11/01/2000 $3,300,000
Clarus Corp. 11/18/2004 12/08/1999 10/25/2000 $4,500,000
CrossWorlds Software, Inc. 01/10/2005 10/30/2001 10/30/2001 $900,000
Electro Scientific Industries,12/13/2004 09/17/2001 03/20/2003 $9,000,000
FirstEnergy Corp. 01/04/2005 04/17/2001 08/19/2003 $84,900,000
Flextronics International, Ltd. 11/16/2004 01/18/2001 06/04/2002 $4,250,000
Globix Corporation 11/04/2004 11/16/2000 12/27/2001 $3,500,000
HALO Industries, Inc. 12/31/2004 02/18/1999 07/30/2001 $7,337,500
Hartmarx Corporation 11/17/2004 08/14/2001 10/01/2001 $2,000,000
Laidlaw, Inc. 12/08/2004 10/15/1997 04/27/2000 $10,000,000
Lernout&Hauspie Speech Products NV 03/31/05 04/28/98 11/09/00 $115,000,000
Muse Technologies, Inc. 01/17/2005 01/24/2000 02/21/2001 $595,000
NewPower Holdings, Inc. 12/30/2004 10/05/2000 12/05/2001 $15,000,000
NorthWestern Corp. 01/18/2005 08/02/2000 04/15/2003 $40,190,000
Nx Networks, Inc. 01/13/2005 12/08/1999 04/24/2000 $6,300,000
Nx Networks, Inc. 01/13/2005 07/27/2000 11/02/2000 $6,300,000
Pacific Gateway Exchange Inc. 12/15/04 05/14/99 03/31/00 $3,000,000
PrePaid Legal Services, Inc. 03/29/2005 03/18/1999 05/15/2001 $925,000
Providian Financial Corp. 12/31/2004 06/06/2001 10/18/2001 $65,000,000
Raytheon Company 12/31/2004 10/07/1998 10/12/1999 $460,000,000
SafetyKleen Corp. 12/08/2004 07/09/1997 03/06/2000 $20,000,000
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation 02/14/01 12/10/01 05/07/02 $13,100,000
Service Corp. International, Inc. 12/20/04 07/17/98 01/26/99 $65,000,000
SmartForce PLC (SkillSoft PLC) 12/31/04 04/27/99 11/18/02 $30,500,000
Specialty Equipment Companies, 12/31/04 04/02/93 04/02/93 $1,000,000
SpectraLink Corp. 11/15/2004 04/19/2001 01/11/2002 $1,500,000
Summit Medical Systems, Inc. 01/14/2005 08/04/1995 03/03/1997 $475,000
Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. 01/06/2005 06/02/1998 02/01/1999 $5,000,000
The Interpublic Group of Companies,11/22/04 10/28/97 10/16/02 $77,000,000
Theragenics Corp. 11/23/2004 01/29/1998 01/11/1999 $10,000,000
UniCapital Corporation 03/31/2005 05/14/1998 05/15/2000 $5,200,000
ViroPharma, Inc. 11/30/2004 07/13/1999 03/19/2002 $9,000,000
WestPoint Stevens, Inc. 12/20/2004 02/10/1999 10/10/2000 $4,250,000
WorldCom, Inc. 03/04/2005 04/29/1999 06/25/2002 $2,650,000,000

[echoes70]

Ciao Pietro,
è un po' che non visito i tuoi post, ti chiederei se puoi di fare un piccolo aggiornamento sulla class action parmalat promossa da milberg.
Ero rimasto all'attesa per l'ammissione degli italiani.
grazie

[pietro66]

Originalmente inviato da echoes70

Ciao Pietro,
è un po' che non visito i tuoi post, ti chiederei se puoi di fare un piccolo aggiornamento sulla class action parmalat promossa da milberg.
Ero rimasto all'attesa per l'ammissione degli italiani.
grazie

In estrema sintesi:
1 - la class action procede, anche se ora è curata non più dallo Studio Milberg (oggi Lerach Coughlin Stoya Geller Rudman & Robbins) ma da altri studi legali;
2 - il "class period" è stato accorciato di circa 11 giorni (dal nuovo Studio)
3 - sono stati "graziati" 3 convenuti ( UBS, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley) che ora compaiono solo come "non defendant third parties";
4 - entro fine anno / primi mesi del 2005 dovrebbero essere depositate le comparse difensive dei convenuti;
5 - al momento gli italiani sono compresi tra i beneficiari

Pietro66

[FaGal]

hai ricevuto mia email con manuale di class action?

[pietro66]

Si grazie, lo conoscevo già ma è sempre gradito ogni contributo.
Pietro

[FaGal]

Shareholder Class Action Filed Against Dobson Communications Corporation by the Law Firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
Monday October 25, 6:00 pm ET

BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Oct. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of all securities purchasers of the Dobson Communications Corporation (Nasdaq: DCEL - News; "Dobson" and the "Company") from May 19, 2003 through August 9, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J. Check, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.

The complaint charges Dobson, Everett R. Dobson, Russell L. Dobson, Stephen T. Dobson, Douglas B. Stephens, Bruce R. Knooihuizen, and Richard D. Sewell, Jr. with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the Company's growth in roaming minutes was eroding; (2) that the Company had been missing sales quotas, as its service, marketing and customer upgrade cots spiraled out of control; (3) that the Company's largest equity interest holders AT&T and Bank of American intended to dispose of their interests in Dobson; and (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company.

On February 17, 2004, Dobson reported operating income of $48.6 million for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2003. The results were disappointing due to weak growth in roaming minutes and very large reduction in 2004 guidance. This news shocked the market. Shares of Dobson fell $2.65 per share, or 36.55 percent, on February 18, 2004, to close at $4.60 per share. On August 9, 2004, Dobson reported a net loss applicable to common shareholders of $15.9 million, or $0.12 per share, for the second quarter ended June 30, 2004. On this news, shares of Dobson fell an additional $1.30 per share, or 54.17 percent, on August 10, 2004, to close at $1.10 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Schiffrin & Barroway is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered in excess of a billion dollars on behalf of institutional and high net worth individual investors. For more information about Schiffrin & Barroway, or to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit http://www.sbclasslaw.com

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than December 21, 2004 move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts 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. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Schiffrin & Barroway, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

CONTACT: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
Or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com


Source: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP

[FaGal]

October 29, 2004 02:28 PM US Eastern Timezone

Stull, Stull & Brody Announces Class Action against MetLife, Inc.

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 29, 2004--Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed on October 29, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of MetLife, Inc. ("MetLife") (NYSE:MET) between April 5, 2000 and 9:31 a.m., Eastern Time, October 19, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period") against MetLife and certain officers and directors of the Company.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts regarding the Company's financial performance throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

The Complaint specifically alleges that during the Class Period MetLife failed to disclose that in order to steer business its way, the Company paid tens of millions of dollars of contingent commissions "kickbacks." In fact, on October 19, 2004, MetLife admitted that in 2003 alone, it paid $25 million in contingent commissions. In addition, MetLife also paid other fees for data processing, billing and "communication" services.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by, among others, the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody. Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws in federal courts over the past 30 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. Stull, Stull & Brody maintains offices in both New York and Los Angeles.

If you acquired MetLife securities between April 5, 2000 and 9:31 a.m., Eastern Time, October 19, 2004, you may, no later than December 20, 2004, request the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts 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. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Stull, Stull & Brody, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017. You can also visit our website at www.ssbny.com.

Contacts


Stull, Stull & Brody, New York
Tzivia Brody, Esq., 800-337-4983
Fax: 212-490-2022
SSBNY@aol.com
www.ssbny.com


Print this Release

[FaGal]

Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Lehman Brothers, Inc., Lehman ABS Corp., Banc of America Securities LLC, and J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, Inc.

MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 28, 2004--Herman & Mermelstein, P.A.:

-- Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Lehman Brothers, Inc., Lehman ABS Corp., Banc of America Securities LLC, and J.J.B Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, Inc., Relating to the Purchase Of GE Global Insurance Notes Corporate Backed Trust Certificates

Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. has filed a Class Action Complaint charging Lehman Brothers, Inc., Lehman ABS Corp., Bank of America Securities LLC and J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, Inc., with violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Securities Act of 1933). Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. (http://www.hermanlaw.com), a law firm based in Florida, announces that it filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers (other than Defendants) who acquired "Corporate Backed Trust Certificates of GE Global Insurance, Series 2003-19, Class A-1" (the "Certificates"), between December 11, 2003 and May 17, 2004. You can contact Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. by telephone at 1-800-686-9921 or vial email at herman@hermanlaw.com.

Plaintiffs' claims arise from Defendants' "repackaging" of debt securities issued by GE Global Insurance Holding Corp. ("GE Global") for sale to investors. In December, 2003, a trust was created (the "Trust") to hold $38 million aggregate principal amount of 7% Notes issued by GE Global (the "GE Global Notes" or the "Underlying Securities"). The Trust was formed pursuant to Trust Agreement between Lehman ABS, as Depositor, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee.

The Underlying Securities were originally issued by GE Global in February, 1996, and are to mature in February, 2026. The aggregate principal amount of $38 million of the Underlying Securities was purchased by Lehman ABS in the secondary market, and delivered to the Trustee pursuant to the Trust Agreement.

By means of the Trust, the GE Global Notes were repackaged as new securities, denominated Class A-1 Certificates. The Trust offered 1,520,000 A-1 Certificates to the public at an interest rate of 6% and a price of $25 per Certificate. Each Certificate represented an undivided beneficial interest in the assets of the Trust.

The Trust also issued in a private offering Class A-2 Certificates, which were interest-only Certificates that did not entitle holders to distributions of principal from the Trust.

The Trust required that its assets be liquidated in the event that GE Global were to state in writing that it intends permanently to cease filing periodic reports required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (referred to in the Prospectus as an "SEC Reporting Failure").

Although the Prospectus discloses the contingency of an SEC Reporting Failure, nowhere does the Prospectus discuss or mention the nature and extent of the risk of an SEC Reporting Failure. Other potential adverse events and contingencies, and the risks associated therewith, are discussed in some detail in the Prospectus, including those which may from GE Global's financial difficulties or its failure to make payments on the Notes.

Shortly after the initial sale of the Certificates to the public, GE reorganized its businesses, as of January 1, 2004, around its "markets and customers," reducing the number of its reporting segments from 5 to 4.

On March 16, 2004, GE Global issued a press release announcing that it would cease SEC reporting as a separate entity and de-list the GE Global Notes from the New York Stock Exchange. GE Global stated the following reasons for this action:

GE Global is taking the action to simplify and streamline its reporting. The current number of GE Global's debt holders of record falls below the minimum SEC thresholds required for ongoing reporting.

Shortly after GE Global's announcement the Trust was liquidated resulting in a substantial and immediate loss to the investors. The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus for the Certificates failed to accurately disclose the risks associated with the investment.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than sixty (60) days from today, move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claims are typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., a Florida based law firm, is a law firm with a national practice and reputation. Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. is well known for aggressively representing its clients with the highest level of skill. Please visit our website at http://www.hermanlaw.com to learn more about our firm, its practice and other cases. If you wish to discuss this action with an attorney or have questions concerning this notice, please contact Jeffrey Herman, by email at herman@hermanlaw.com or by calling 1-800-686-9921.

Contacts


Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., Miami
Jeffrey Herman, 305-931-2200, Fax 305-931-0877

[pietro66]

Vivendi Case Stays In U.S.

By declining to issue shares on a U.S. stock exchange, a foreign company may believe it is avoiding the risk of having a securities class action brought against it in a U.S. court. Not necessarily. An example is the Vivendi Universal securities class action currently pending in the S.D.N.Y. Vivendi is a French corporation and the plaintiffs are foreign investors who purchased their stock on foreign stock exchanges. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs have brought suit for violations of U.S. securities laws.

In a recent decision (In re Vivendi Universal, SA Sec. Litig., 2004 WL 2375830 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2004)), the court has confirmed that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. The general standard in the Second Circuit is that a court may exercise jurisdiction over securities claims asserted by foreigners if: "a) there was conduct in the United States that directly caused the foreigners' losses and (b) such conduct was more than 'merely preparatory' to a securities fraud conducted elsewhere." In this case, the court found that Vivendi's CEO and CFO had "moved their operations to New York and spent at least half their time managing the company from the United States during a critical part of the class period." The court held that this was sufficient to conclude that the U.S.-based conduct was integral to the alleged fraud.

[FaGal]

Faccio una traduzione, anche se credo non ve ne sia il caso, per importanza del passo (qual è la fonte????....)

Evitando di emettere titoli azionari sui mercati finanziari USA, una società straniera può pensare di eludere il rischio di vedersi convenuta innanzi ad una corte federale. No è necessariamente così. Un caso è quello di Vivendi Univeral, una corporation francese che è convenuta in una class action da attori che sono investitori stranieri e che hanno acquistato titoli su mercati finanziari esteri. Nondimeno, gli attori (ricorrenti) hanno fatto causa per violazione delle leggi americane in materia di investimenti finanziari.

In una sentenza recente ((In re Vivendi Universal, SA Sec. Litig., 2004 WL 2375830 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2004)) la corte ha dato esito positivo alla domanda sulla sussistenza del titolo di giurisdizione. L'orientamento nel Second Circuit è di ammettere la giurisdizione della corte su una controversis in materia di strumenti finanziari sollevata da stranieri se:
a) è stata posta in essere negli Usa una condotta dalla quale si è originata direttamente una perdita economica per investitore straniero;
b) tale condotta rappresenti un atto "meramente preparatorio" ad un comportamento fraudolento in materia, consumatosi altrove.
In questa vicenda processuale, la corte ha rinvenuto che il CFO e CEO di Vivendi avevano "posto in essere queste operazioni a New york e perchè hanno trascorso almeno metà del loro tempo alla guida della società dagli Usa, per una parte significativa del periodo ricompreso nella class action " La corte ha quindi statuito che ciò può portare a concludere che la condotta tenuta negli Usa fa parte integrante della presunta frode