|
|
|
Law Office of Rita O. White - Canton Criminal & DUI Lawyers
Legal PR |
2014/04/25 16:57
|
If you're facing a legal issue and seek guidance, the Law Office of Rita O. White is here to help. Tackling any legal matter without a trained professional can negatively impact the outcome of your legal situation. Our Plymouth Canton Criminal lawyers understand the stress that comes with looming legal issues which is why we work tirelessly to support our clients no matter the situation.
We believe in giving clients our full attention and treating them with care and respect. When you work with us, you'll get the benefit of:
Caring and knowledeable lawyers
Convenient office hours
Reasonable attorney fees
Don't risk anything! Our dedicated team of lawyers are always available to offer guidance and support. To set up an appointment today or learn more about our Plymouth Canton Criminal law practice contact us at the Law Office of Rita O. White today. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fred Meissner - Tax Lawyer in Phoenix, Arizona
Legal PR |
2014/04/25 16:57
|
Fred Meissner is a former IRS Revenue Agent with over 30 years of government and private experience. Twenty years ago, before his admission to the bar as a tax lawyer in Arizona, Mr. Meissner was an IRS agent for ten years. He has worked in corporate tax departments for Fortune 500 companies and the "Big Four" Accounting Firms. He holds a LL.M., a specialized law degree in Taxation. With this combination of education, training and experience, he provides his clients with unique insight and judgement on any tax question.
Mr. Meissner's areas of expertise include state and federal income tax audit, sales tax audits, property tax issues, tax debt, reduction, installment agreements, Offers in Compromise, tax penalty abatements, business tax issues, tax-motivated bankruptcy, and many related difficulties.
Mr. Meissner represents tax clients throughout the United States. He also advises on bankruptcy filing, tax planning, and estate planning and asset protection.
At the Law Offices of Fred Meissner, we will deal with the IRS or state, offer the ability to prepare tax returns, and do a bankruptcy if necessary. We are your one stop shopping solution.
If you are in need of tax consultation in Phoenix, Arizona, please contact the Law Offices of Fred Meissner for your legal needs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court ruling could delay California water project
Legal PR |
2014/03/17 20:45
|
A state appellate court has ruled that California water officials cannot go onto private property for soil testing and other studies related to construction of two massive tunnels that would siphon water from the Sacramento River.
Nancy Vogel of the state's Department of Water Resources said Friday that officials anticipated the ruling and work won't be delayed.
The decision handed down Thursday by the state's 3rd District Court of Appeal says an intrusion on private property without permission violates the California Constitution.
If built, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan — estimated to cost billions of dollars — would send fresh water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Central and Southern California.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed against the state by more than 150 property owners in Sacramento, San Joaquin, Yolo, Solano and Contra Costa counties.
The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in a 44-page decision with the majority opinion saying the state must adhere to eminent domain laws, which give property owners the right to a jury trial to determine a fair payment for taking away their land.
Acts such as testing soil, observing or trapping animals either by driving onto property, using boats or going on foot amount to "taking" and trigger the need for eminent domain proceedings, the majority opinion said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Legal PR |
2012/08/24 21:04
|
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit against Monster Beverage Corporation and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Monster securities between February 23, 2012 and August 9, 2012, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This securities class action seeks to recover damages caused by the Company's violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Monster securities during the Class Period, you have until October 22, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York and Chicago, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 75 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of defrauded investors.
www.pomerantzlaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Class Action
Legal PR |
2012/01/10 17:55
|
Bernstein Liebhard 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 Camelot Information Systems Inc. American Depositary Shares between July 21, 2010 and August 17, 2011, including those who acquired Camelot ADSs pursuant or traceable to the Company’s false and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued in connection with its July 21, 2010 initial public offering and December 10, 2010 Secondary Offering.
The complaint charges Camelot, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Offerings with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Camelot is a holding company that conducts business through its operating subsidiaries in China. The Company is a provider of enterprise application services and financial industry information technology services in China.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose negative trends in Camelot’s business, including with Camelot’s most important customers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Camelot ADSs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $26.73 per share on January 11, 2011.
On July 21, 2010, Camelot announced the pricing of its IPO of 13.3 million ADSs at $11.00 per ADS. Subsequently, on December 9, 2010, Camelot announced the pricing of its Secondary Offering of 7,160,206 ADSs by selling shareholders at $19.50 per ADS. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements issued in connection with the Offerings were inaccurate and misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
On August 15, 2011, Seeking Alpha published an article questioning several key components of Camelot’s business. This caused Camelot’s ADSs to drop to below $9 per share. Then on August 18, 2011, Camelot issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2011 unaudited financial results, including lower-than-expected guidance for fiscal 2011. On this news, Camelot’s ADSs dropped $2.24 per share to close at $6.32 per share on August 18, 2011, a one-day decline of 26%.
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) the Company’s IT professionals were not a competitive advantage to the Company and many were dissatisfied with Camelot, which would adversely affect Camelot’s ability to retain its customers; (b) the Company was suffering from undisclosed attrition of employees, which was having a negative impact on the Company’s ability to attract new customers; (c) Camelot did not have the large numbers of highly trained professionals at its disposal that it had represented; and (d) Camelot’s contract with its most important customer, IBM, was not as solid as represented, and would not be renewed on the same terms.
www.bernlieb.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm & Attorney Directory |
| Law Firm PR News provides the most current career information of legal professionals and is the top source for law firms and attorneys. |
| Lawyer & Law Firm Directory |
|
|
Law Firm PR News RSS
