Showing posts with label Lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawsuit. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Lawsuit against Le-Nature's law firm reinstated

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A Pennsylvania appeals court has reinstated a malpractice claim against one of Pittsburgh's leading law firms.

The Superior Court ruling Monday involves law firm K & L Gates and Le-Nature's, a bankrupt soft drink maker that was based in Latrobe.

In the lawsuit a bankruptcy court trustee had accused K & L Gates of professional negligence for its role in an investigation that failed to uncover massive fraud at Le-Nature's.

Last year the founder of Le-Nature's was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison for an accounting fraud scheme that cost investors $684 million. Other company executives and associates also received stiff sentences.

A K & L Gates spokesman didn't immediately respond to messages seeking comment.


View the original article here

Monday, May 21, 2012

NY judge: Apple statements damage lawsuit position

NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal judge cited the confident voice of the late Apple founder Steve Jobs on Tuesday as she refused to toss out lawsuits alleging the company and various publishers conspired to drive up the price of electronic books.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote noted in her written ruling that Jobs had made statements that agreements between the publishers and Apple Inc., based in Cupertino, Calif., would cause consumers to "pay a little more" and that prices would "be the same" at Apple and Amazon.com.

In a lawsuit this year, the U.S. government joined 15 states in suing Apple and publishers, saying they conspired in the fall of 2009 to force e-book prices several dollars above the $9.99 price charged by Amazon.com on its popular Kindle device. According to the lawsuit, the publishers were concerned that Amazon's e-book price was too far below the price of hardcover books and Apple was concerned because it was preparing to launch the iPad. By 2010, Amazon was responsible for 90 percent of e-book sales in the United States, the judge noted.

Amazon's $9.99 price for best-sellers was such a deep discount from list prices of $20 and more that it was widely believed Amazon was selling the e-books at a loss to attract more customers and force competitors to lower their prices.

The judge rejected the argument that Apple and the publishers were merely improving the efficiencies of distribution, saying: "It has everything to do with coordinating a horizontal agreement among publishers to raise prices, and eliminating horizontal price competition among Apple's competitors at the retail level."

The judge noted that Jobs told the publishers that "the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway."

A lawyer for Apple did not immediately respond to a message for comment Tuesday. But Apple said last year the government's accusation that it conspired with major book publishers to raise the price of e-books was untrue. Apple said it instead had fostered innovation and competition by introducing its iBookstore in 2010 and said customers had benefited from e-books that are more interactive and engaging.

The judge wrote that Apple had a "strong incentive" to encourage publishers to agree together on the rules for e-book sales so that its iBookstore did not face stiff competition.

"With the fortuitous entry of Apple into the market for e-books, and the decision by Apple to join the price-fixing conspiracy, that horizontal conspiracy became a potent weapon for engineering a fundamental shift in an entire industry," the judge said.

The federal government has reached a settlement with three of the publishers, Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Shuster. But it is proceeding with its lawsuit against Apple and Holtzbrinck Publishers, doing business as Macmillan, and The Penguin Publishing Co. Ltd., doing business as Penguin Group.

Messages left Tuesday with lawyers for Holtzbrinck and Penguin were not immediately returned.


View the original article here

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Okla. court favors state in tax collection lawsuit

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the state can require cities to use the Oklahoma Tax Commission to collect city sales taxes.

The decision overturns a lower court ruling in a lawsuit filed by the city of Tulsa.

Tulsa spokeswoman Michelle Allen said attorneys for the city planned to meet later with Mayor Dewey Bartlett to discuss the ruling.

"The legal department is reviewing it and we don't have a comment this time," Allen said.

The state attorney general's office did not immediately respond to phone calls seeking comment.

The state Legislature, on the final day of its 2010 session, approved the bill that was later signed into law that required the Tax Commission to collect municipal sales taxes in what was called an effort to streamline tax collections statewide.

On June 1, 2010, one month before the law went into effect, Tulsa contracted with Alabama-based Revenue Discovery Systems to collect its taxes. Officials estimated the city would save about $700,000 from the $2 million a year it paid the Tax Commission in collection fees.

The city's lawsuit, filed in August 2010, claimed the law unconstitutionally impaired the city's contract and infringes on the city's powers granted under the state constitution and the city charter.

An Oklahoma County District Court judge ruled in favor of the city in May 2011 and the state appealed.

The state Supreme Court's unanimous ruling said the Legislature has the authority to develop a uniform tax collection system and that the Legislature's authority supersedes the city charter.


View the original article here

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Gevo dismisses Butamax patent infringement lawsuit

JPM Chief Faces Angry Shareholders; Spitzer Sees Conflict With NY FedDaily Ticker

"Jamie's problem...is he's running an institution that's not only 'too big to fail', it's too big to succeed and …


View the original article here

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Judge lets Fruit Roll-Ups lawsuit proceed

(Reuters) - General Mills Inc must defend a lawsuit that claims the food company deceived consumers into believing its Fruit Roll-Ups and Fruit by the Foot snacks are made with real fruit.

Reasonable consumers might be misled by packaging that claimed the snacks are "made with real fruit," and would not read the fine print, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in San Francisco said on Thursday.

The federal lawsuit is one of many accusing food companies of advertising products as being healthier than they are.

Last month, Italy's Ferrero set aside $3 million to settle a U.S. lawsuit by a San Diego mother that claimed its Nutella chocolate spread could not be considered a healthy and nutritious part of a balanced breakfast.

The General Mills case was brought in October by Annie Lam, a resident of Daly City, California. It sought class-action status on behalf of consumers nationwide.

Lam said General Mills incorrectly described the ingredients of its fruit snacks, citing strawberry-flavored Fruit Roll-Ups that contain "pears from concentrate," but no strawberries.

Among the ingredients listed in court papers are corn syrup, dried corn syrup, sugar and partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil.

Lam also said the packaging was likely to deceive consumers into believing the snacks are healthful and natural, rather than a combination of artificial, non-fruit ingredients.

"The court agrees with Lam," Conti wrote. "The fruit snacks' ingredients list cannot be used to correct the message that reasonable consumers may take from the rest of the packaging: that the fruit snacks are made with a particular type and quantity of fruit."

Conti also dismissed other claims over the packaging. The complaint alleged violations of California and Minnesota consumer protection laws. General Mills is based in Minneapolis.

Maerenn Jepsen, a General Mills spokeswoman, said the company does not discuss pending litigation.

"We stand behind our products, and we stand behind the accuracy of the labeling of those products," she said.

Michael Reese, a lawyer for Lam, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

General Mills' food brands include Betty Crocker baking mixes, Cheerios and Wheaties cereal, Green Giant vegetables, Haagen-Dazs ice cream and Progresso soup.

The case is Lam v. General Mills Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-05056.

(This story has been corrected to add dropped words to paragraph 4 and show that Ferrero lawsuit was in the United States)

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel)


View the original article here

Monday, May 14, 2012

Schwab loses lawsuit to halt FINRA action

By Suzanne Barlyn

(Reuters) - A federal court judge threw out a lawsuit by Charles Schwab Corp that had sought to stop its regulator from disciplining the brokerage for trying to take away customers' rights to sue it in class actions.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California late on Friday granted a request by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to dismiss a lawsuit that Schwab filed against the regulator in February.

Schwab sued FINRA, Wall Street's industry-funded watchdog, a day after the regulator announced an enforcement case against the San Francisco-based company.

FINRA alleged that Schwab added a new provision to more than 6.8 million customer account agreements in October that would preclude them from starting or joining class-action lawsuits against the brokerage.

The case raised significant investor protection issues, according to lawyers.

Class actions are a common way for small investors to band together in a court case to recover their losses. A win by Schwab would have set the stage for a showdown that could lead other companies to change their arbitration agreements and potentially weaken FINRA's hold over its own enforcement process, lawyers said.

Schwab also required customers to agree that industry arbitrators would not have the authority to consolidate claims from multiple parties. Such consolidated cases are common, but typically include far fewer claimants than those in class actions. Both types of cases often involve investors with smaller claims, typically under $10,000, according to lawyers.

"It's a good decision for all investors and customers of Charles Schwab," said Ryan K. Bakhtiari, president of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, a Norman, Oklahoma-based group of securities arbitration lawyers. "The rules are clear and unequivocal that Schwab did not have the right to prohibit class actions, he said.

Judge Laporte, in a 21-page opinion, agreed with FINRA that Schwab is required to follow its procedures for disciplinary cases. That process ultimately includes a review by a federal court judge.

FINRA, in addition to being Wall Street's regulator, runs the arbitration forum where customers and brokerage firms typically must resolve legal disputes. FINRA arbitration rules do not allow arbitrators to hear class action cases.

FINRA rules also restrict brokerages from limiting investors' rights to file court cases in certain situations.

Schwab's agreement would effectively leave investors in a bind, in which many would not have access to a legal process for recovering their losses, lawyers said.

Schwab had argued, among other things, that it would be "irreparably harmed" by using FINRA's process, which the company said could take up to four or more years. But delay is not an adequate reason for avoiding FINRA's process, the court wrote. Schwab did not show it was "entitled to an exception" from FINRA's process, according to the opinion.

The court's dismissal of Schwab's lawsuit against FINRA, however, leaves some questions unresolved while FINRA continues its disciplinary case against the brokerage, said William Jacobson, a professor at Cornell Law School's Securities Law Clinic in Ithaca, New York.

Schwab must now decide whether to continue using a provision in its customer agreement during those proceedings "that amounts to, in effect, a continued, knowing violation," he said. It is also unclear what would happen if Schwab tried to enforce the class action waiver agreement in a case against a customer, Jacobson said.

A spokesperson for Schwab was not immediately available for comment. A FINRA spokeswoman declined to comment.

(Reporting by Suzanne Barlyn; Editing by Richard Chang)


View the original article here

Monday, April 30, 2012

Summary Box: Yahoo expands Facebook lawsuit

LEGAL SKIRMISH: Yahoo is expanding its allegations of intellectual property theft against Facebook. In court papers filed Friday, Yahoo Inc. says Facebook's online social network is infringing on 12 of its Internet patents. That's up from the 10 alleged violations that Yahoo cited when it initiated the lawsuit March 12.

GETTING NASTIER: Yahoo denied allegations that it's also infringing on Facebook's patents and accused its rival of engaging in shady conduct. Facebook said it's perplexed by Yahoo's "erratic actions."

MORE DRAMA LOOMS: The acrimony is spilling out as Facebook prepares to raise $5 billion in a highly anticipated initial public offering of stock.


View the original article here

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

WPI in Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NYSE:WPI - News) recently announced the filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (:ANDA) with the US Food and Drug Administration (:FDA) for a generic version of Depomed Inc.’s (NasdaqGS:DEPO - News) diabetes drug, Glumetza. The drug is used as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type II diabetes.

In response, Depomed and Valeant International together filed a lawsuit against Watson Pharma in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, to prevent the generic company from commercializing generic Glumetza before the patents expire.

Since the lawsuit was filed under the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA cannot approve Watson Pharma's ANDA until 30 months from the date of Depomed receiving the notice for the ANDA filing or until the court order, whichever is earlier.

According to IMS Health, US sales of Glumetza amounted to $80 million, for the twelve months ended February 28, 2012.

Separately, Watson Pharma announced the launch of an authorized generic version of Shionogi, Inc.’s drug, Fortamet. The drug is available as an adjunct to diet and exercise to lower blood glucose in patients 17 years or older.

According to IMS Health, US sales of Fortamet came in at $82 million, for the twelve months ended February 28, 2012.

Our View

We currently have a Neutral recommendation on Watson Pharma. The stock carries a Zacks #2 Rank (Buy rating) in the short run.

We expect new generic product launches over regular intervals to help drive the company’s Global Generic segment’s sales, which climbed 46% during 2011 to $3.32 billion, driven by the generic launch of Pfizer Inc.’s (NYSE:PFE - News) Lipitor and Johnson & Johnson’s (NYSE:JNJ - News) Concerta.

Read the Full Research Report on WPI

Read the Full Research Report on DEPO

Read the Full Research Report on PFE

Read the Full Research Report on JNJ

Zacks Investment Research

More From Zacks.com


View the original article here

Monday, April 23, 2012

Judge dismisses claims against banks in GE lawsuit

By Nick Brown

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed claims against Goldman Sachs Group Inc (NYS:GS - News), JPMorgan Chase & Co (NYS:JPM - News) and 40 other defendants that they helped mislead investors in General Electric Co's $12.2 billion stock offering in 2008.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who took over the case in February, said a January ruling denying the defendants' bid to dismiss claims failed to consider key court rulings and improperly relied on certain statements.

Cote's ruling does not entirely dismiss the class action lawsuit filed by GE investors, keeping intact claims that GE (NYS:GE - News) and its chief financial officer, Keith Sherin, made misleading statements about the quality of the company's loan portfolio.

The State Universities Retirement System of Illinois, the lead plaintiff, filed the lawsuit in 2009, saying GE and myriad financial firms were responsible for investor losses during a six-month period when GE's stock price fell to about $10 from about $26.

The plaintiffs alleged that GE withheld information regarding its health and the health of its GE Capital finance arm, including exposures to subprime and other low-quality loans. They also said GE misleadingly touted itself as being safer than rivals, despite the effects of the financial crisis.

Among those dismissed from the lawsuit on Wednesday are Barclays PLC (LSE:BARC.L - News), Citigroup (NYS:C) and Bank of America Corp (NYS:BAC - News).

"The January opinion improperly relied on statements that were not incorporated into the offering documents, and on statements that were modified and superseded by later statements," Cote said.

It also failed to take into account a court ruling that had established rules on whether stated opinions could be grounds for a lawsuit, Cote said.

Attorneys for the dismissed defendants did not respond to requests for comment. Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached.

A GE spokesman did not respond to an email seeking comment.

The case is In re: General Electric Co Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 09-01951.

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Ryan Woo)


View the original article here

Friday, April 13, 2012

Lawsuit: Cell makers violated Omaha firm's patent

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- An Omaha company is suing five cellphone service companies for allegedly violating its patent on security technology that helps smartphones, tablets and broadband mobile cards access the internet.

Prism Technologies alleges the companies used systems that it "pioneered and patented," even though they had no legal right to do so. Five separate lawsuits in U.S. District Court of Nebraska were filed against AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA, Sprint PCS and U.S. Cellular.

The lawsuits say the company secured a patent for its inventions in October 2007. The company is seeking royalty payments with interest, as well as a judge's order for the companies to stop the alleged violations. In each lawsuit, attorneys for Prism say the company will "be greatly and irreparably harmed" if the patent violations continue.

The company's technology allows carriers to block users who haven't paid for Internet service, and determines whether a user is on a limited data plan.

A spokesman for Prism Technologies and several company attorneys declined to comment. Jonathan Caplan, a Prism attorney based in New York, said the company did not want to speak publicly about the lawsuit.

In a statement, attorneys for Prism Technologies said the cellphone companies violated two patents when they used the technology, which controls access to "computer resources that allow user devices such as smartphones, tablets (and) broadband mobile cards to browse the Internet."

Representatives for T-Mobile and Verizon declined to comment, and a Sprint spokesman said he needed to consult with his company's legal department before speaking. Messages left with AT&T and U.S. Cellular were not returned.

Prism has filed similar federal lawsuits against PayPal, Microsoft and other companies. The Microsoft and PayPal cases were settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Prism Technologies Group has offered information technology support and consulting since 2003, according to its website.


View the original article here