Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court, 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 (the
“Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Walter Energy produces and exports metallurgical coal for electric
utility and industrial customers in the United States.
The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business and
financial prospects, including that: (1) the Company was experiencing
so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation
rates in Canada that significantly reduced the Company’s coal
production; (2) 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 Energy’s second-quarter
average sales prices and operating results; (3) the Company was
experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and
(4), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about the Company’s business and financial
prospects during the Class Period.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is
certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If
you purchased Walter Energy common stock between April 20, 2011 and
September 21, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26,
2012 to move for lead plaintiff status.
www.glancylaw.com
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Health care lawyer Clement as high court regular
Paul Clement used to argue for the federal government's power until he started arguing against it.
But he's no flip-flopping political candidate; he's a lawyer. Changes like this are part of his job.
Clement is playing a key role in three politically charged Supreme Court cases in which Republican-led states object to Obama administration policies or federal laws on health care, immigration and redrawing political boundaries.
In the biggest of those, the 45-year-old law school acquaintance of President Barack Obama will be trying to sink Obama's health care overhaul.
Not that long ago, Clement would regularly stand before the justices and defend even the most aggressive uses of federal power, making his case without written notes and parrying questions with an easy banter.
He argued for the Bush administration's policy on detaining suspected terrorists, a federal law outlawing a medical procedure called "partial-birth abortion" by opponents, the McCain-Feingold law aimed at limiting the influence of money in politics and a federal ban on the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
But he's no flip-flopping political candidate; he's a lawyer. Changes like this are part of his job.
Clement is playing a key role in three politically charged Supreme Court cases in which Republican-led states object to Obama administration policies or federal laws on health care, immigration and redrawing political boundaries.
In the biggest of those, the 45-year-old law school acquaintance of President Barack Obama will be trying to sink Obama's health care overhaul.
Not that long ago, Clement would regularly stand before the justices and defend even the most aggressive uses of federal power, making his case without written notes and parrying questions with an easy banter.
He argued for the Bush administration's policy on detaining suspected terrorists, a federal law outlawing a medical procedure called "partial-birth abortion" by opponents, the McCain-Feingold law aimed at limiting the influence of money in politics and a federal ban on the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Las Vegas Product Liability Attorney - Luis A. Ayon
Las Vegas Product Liability Attorney
Luis has significant litigation experience in Nevada's state and federal courts. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and contested and adversarial matters in bankruptcy court, real estate litigation and financial institutions litigation.
Prior to joining the firm, Luis was an associate at an international law firm where he focused on commercial litigation as well as contested bankruptcy matters. He also served as the first law clerk for Presiding Civil Judge, the Honorable Elizabeth Gonzalez and worked for one of the nation's largest plaintiffs' firms where he managed a significant case load involving catastrophic brain and spinal injuries, wrongful death, product liability and insurance bad faith claims.
Luis A. Ayon is commited to providing clients with the highest level of personal service. His dedication in his work focusing on all phases of litigation from obtaining fast pre-litigation results to handling cases through trial and appeal has given him extensive experience. His experience can rest assure that all cases will be handled by skilled professionals.Contact Maier Gutierrez Ayon PLLC.
Luis has significant litigation experience in Nevada's state and federal courts. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and contested and adversarial matters in bankruptcy court, real estate litigation and financial institutions litigation.
Prior to joining the firm, Luis was an associate at an international law firm where he focused on commercial litigation as well as contested bankruptcy matters. He also served as the first law clerk for Presiding Civil Judge, the Honorable Elizabeth Gonzalez and worked for one of the nation's largest plaintiffs' firms where he managed a significant case load involving catastrophic brain and spinal injuries, wrongful death, product liability and insurance bad faith claims.
Luis A. Ayon is commited to providing clients with the highest level of personal service. His dedication in his work focusing on all phases of litigation from obtaining fast pre-litigation results to handling cases through trial and appeal has given him extensive experience. His experience can rest assure that all cases will be handled by skilled professionals.Contact Maier Gutierrez Ayon PLLC.
British court: Right-to-die case can proceed
In a case that challenges Britain's definition of murder, a severely
disabled man who says his life has no "privacy or dignity" will be
granted a hearing on his request that a doctor be allowed to give him a
lethal injection.
Tony Nicklinson suffered a paralyzing stroke in 2005 that left him unable to speak or move below his neck. The former rugby player and corporate manager requires constant care and communicates largely by blinking, although his mind has remained unaffected.
"I am fed up with my life and don't want to spend the next 20 years or so like this," Nicklinson said in a statement.
In January, Nicklinson asked the High Court to declare that any doctor who kills him with his consent will not be charged with murder. On Monday, a judge said the request may proceed, making it the first right-to-die case of its kind to get a hearing in a British court.
The 57-year-old's condition is stable, though Nicklinson has refused since 2007 to take any life-prolonging drugs recommended by doctors, including heart medication or blood thinners.
The ministry of justice argued that granting Nicklinson's request would require changing the law on murder and that such changes must be made by Parliament. The government had applied to have the case dismissed.
Tony Nicklinson suffered a paralyzing stroke in 2005 that left him unable to speak or move below his neck. The former rugby player and corporate manager requires constant care and communicates largely by blinking, although his mind has remained unaffected.
"I am fed up with my life and don't want to spend the next 20 years or so like this," Nicklinson said in a statement.
In January, Nicklinson asked the High Court to declare that any doctor who kills him with his consent will not be charged with murder. On Monday, a judge said the request may proceed, making it the first right-to-die case of its kind to get a hearing in a British court.
The 57-year-old's condition is stable, though Nicklinson has refused since 2007 to take any life-prolonging drugs recommended by doctors, including heart medication or blood thinners.
The ministry of justice argued that granting Nicklinson's request would require changing the law on murder and that such changes must be made by Parliament. The government had applied to have the case dismissed.
Court tosses jury award in Katrina jail lawsuit
A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a jury's award of more than
$650,000 to two Ohio tourists who were arrested in New Orleans on public
drunkenness charges two days before Hurricane Katrina's landfall and
jailed for more than a month after the storm.
A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman didn't falsely imprison Robie Waganfeald and Paul Kunkel Jr., both of Toledo.
The men's lawyers argued during an October 2010 trial that they were entitled by law to be released within 48 hours unless probable cause was found to keep them in custody. But the 5th Circuit judges concluded the 48-hour rule was suspended because of the 2005 storm.
"The undisputed evidence in this case compels the conclusion that Hurricane Katrina was a bona fide emergency within the meaning of the emergency exception to the 48-hour rule," Judge Jacques Wiener wrote. "Indeed, if Katrina was not an emergency, it is difficult to imagine any set of facts that would fit that description."
Gusman said the court ruling's "speaks eloquently."
"Our priority throughout the days and weeks surrounding Hurricane Katrina was the safe transfer of more than 6,000 inmates in an unprecedented movement that had never been attempted in the history of Orleans Parish or the state of Louisiana," Gusman said in a statement. "All of those inmates arrived at their destinations without a single fatality or serious injury. "
A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman didn't falsely imprison Robie Waganfeald and Paul Kunkel Jr., both of Toledo.
The men's lawyers argued during an October 2010 trial that they were entitled by law to be released within 48 hours unless probable cause was found to keep them in custody. But the 5th Circuit judges concluded the 48-hour rule was suspended because of the 2005 storm.
"The undisputed evidence in this case compels the conclusion that Hurricane Katrina was a bona fide emergency within the meaning of the emergency exception to the 48-hour rule," Judge Jacques Wiener wrote. "Indeed, if Katrina was not an emergency, it is difficult to imagine any set of facts that would fit that description."
Gusman said the court ruling's "speaks eloquently."
"Our priority throughout the days and weeks surrounding Hurricane Katrina was the safe transfer of more than 6,000 inmates in an unprecedented movement that had never been attempted in the history of Orleans Parish or the state of Louisiana," Gusman said in a statement. "All of those inmates arrived at their destinations without a single fatality or serious injury. "
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)