A Southern California woman took Honda to small-claims court and won in a big way.
Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Douglas Carnahan ruled Wednesday
that the automaker misled Heather Peters about the potential fuel
economy of her hybrid car and awarded her $9,867 ? much more than the
couple hundred dollars cash that a proposed class-action settlement is
offering.
"At a bare minimum Honda was aware ... that by the time Peters bought
her car there were problems with its living up to its advertised
mileage," Carnahan wrote in the judgment.
Honda disagrees with the judgment rendered in the case and plans to
appeal the decision, company spokesman Chris Martin said in a statement.
Peters, a former lawyer, said she is renewing her legal license after a
10-year lapse so she can represent other Honda owners who have the same
problems she did.
"Wow! Fantastic. I am absolutely thrilled," she said when The Associated
Press informed her of the judge's decision. "Sometimes big justice
comes in small packages. This is a victory for Honda Civic owners
everywhere."
Carnahan included in his 26-page decision a long list of misleading
representations by Honda that he said Peters had correctly identified.
Among them were that the car would use "amazingly little fuel,"
''provides plenty of horsepower while still sipping fuel," and that it
would "save plenty of money on fuel with up to 50 mpg during city
driving."
"Actual performance of plaintiff's vehicle did not live up to these
standards," he said. He noted that when she began receiving much less
than the advertised mileage, "she knew she had a problem."
Peters opted out of the class-action lawsuit so she could try to claim a
larger damage award for her 2006 Honda Civic's failure to deliver the
50 mpg that was promised.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Murray Frank LLP Files Class Action
Murray Frank LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 12 Civ.
0672) on behalf of all individuals and institutions who purchased
securities of GLG Life Tech Corporation during the period between
February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011 (the “Class Period”), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange
Act”).
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements about or knew but failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s original equipment manufacturers were experiencing production issues that impacted the packaging and appearance quality of its products; (2) consumers were responding poorly to the Company’s AN0C and stevia products; and/or (3) the Company would not meet its earnings projections.
On October 6, 2011, GLG Life Tech issued a press release disclosing for the first time a negative outlook concerning its AN0C and stevia products. On the news, the Company’s stock price dropped by 42% from a close of $3.45 per share on October 5, 2011 to a close of $1.99 per share on October 6, 2011.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the period ending September 30, 2011. Revenue for the period was $1.7 million, versus revenue of $20.9 million for the same period in the previous year. EBITDA for the period was negative $8.8 million, versus EBITDA of $6.1 million for the same period in the previous year. Following its announcement of these disappointing results, the Company’s management declined to provide any further formal guidance on revenues, EBITDA, or capital expenditures. On the news, the Company’s stock price continued to drop, from a close of $2.32 per share on November 11, 2011 (the last trading day before the announcement) to a close of $2.01 on November 14, 2011.
If you purchased GLG Life Tech securities during the period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011, you may move the Court, not later than February 13, 2012, to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included in the class.
www.murrayfrank.com
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements about or knew but failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s original equipment manufacturers were experiencing production issues that impacted the packaging and appearance quality of its products; (2) consumers were responding poorly to the Company’s AN0C and stevia products; and/or (3) the Company would not meet its earnings projections.
On October 6, 2011, GLG Life Tech issued a press release disclosing for the first time a negative outlook concerning its AN0C and stevia products. On the news, the Company’s stock price dropped by 42% from a close of $3.45 per share on October 5, 2011 to a close of $1.99 per share on October 6, 2011.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the period ending September 30, 2011. Revenue for the period was $1.7 million, versus revenue of $20.9 million for the same period in the previous year. EBITDA for the period was negative $8.8 million, versus EBITDA of $6.1 million for the same period in the previous year. Following its announcement of these disappointing results, the Company’s management declined to provide any further formal guidance on revenues, EBITDA, or capital expenditures. On the news, the Company’s stock price continued to drop, from a close of $2.32 per share on November 11, 2011 (the last trading day before the announcement) to a close of $2.01 on November 14, 2011.
If you purchased GLG Life Tech securities during the period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011, you may move the Court, not later than February 13, 2012, to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included in the class.
www.murrayfrank.com
French court upholds Scientology fraud conviction
A French appeals court on Thursday upheld the Church of Scientology's
2009 fraud conviction on charges it pressured members into paying large
sums for questionable remedies.
The case began with a legal complaint by a young woman who said she took out loans and spent the equivalent of euro21,000 ($28,000) on books, courses and "purification packages" after being recruited in 1998. When she sought reimbursement and to leave the group, its leadership refused to allow either. She was among three eventual plaintiffs.
"It's a severe defeat for the Church of Scientology, which is hit at the very heart of its organization in France," Olivier Morice, a lawyer for the National Union of Associations Defending Family and Individual Victims of Sects, told reporters after the decision.
Karin Pouw, a spokeswoman for the church in Los Angeles, denounced Thursday's decision, calling it a "miscarriage of justice."
She said the group would appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation and plans to bring a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. Another complaint is pending with a U.N. special rapporteur.
The case began with a legal complaint by a young woman who said she took out loans and spent the equivalent of euro21,000 ($28,000) on books, courses and "purification packages" after being recruited in 1998. When she sought reimbursement and to leave the group, its leadership refused to allow either. She was among three eventual plaintiffs.
"It's a severe defeat for the Church of Scientology, which is hit at the very heart of its organization in France," Olivier Morice, a lawyer for the National Union of Associations Defending Family and Individual Victims of Sects, told reporters after the decision.
Karin Pouw, a spokeswoman for the church in Los Angeles, denounced Thursday's decision, calling it a "miscarriage of justice."
She said the group would appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation and plans to bring a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. Another complaint is pending with a U.N. special rapporteur.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Shareholders of Pain Therapeutics, Inc. are reminded of the securities
class action lawsuit filed against PTIE and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court, Western
District of Texas, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased PTIE securities during the period from February
3, 2011 through June 23, 2011.
If you are a shareholder who purchased PTIE securities during the Class Period, you have until January 31, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, PTIE made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts about a new drug, REMOXY. Specifically, PTIE failed to disclose that REMOXY was not approvable by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration due to chemistry, manufacturing, and control deficiencies that caused inconsistent results during laboratory tests.
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
If you are a shareholder who purchased PTIE securities during the Class Period, you have until January 31, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, PTIE made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts about a new drug, REMOXY. Specifically, PTIE failed to disclose that REMOXY was not approvable by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration due to chemistry, manufacturing, and control deficiencies that caused inconsistent results during laboratory tests.
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
Disgraced ex-journalist fights for CA law license
A former journalist who became the subject of a Hollywood movie after he
was caught fabricating articles in the late 1990s is fighting to become
a lawyer in California over the objections of a state bar committee.
Stephen Glass, whose ethical missteps at The New Republic and other magazines were recounted in the film "Shattered Glass" and an autobiographical novel, has challenged the bar committee's decision to deny him a license to practice law, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Monday.
Glass attended law school at Georgetown University and passed California's bar exam in 2007. His application for an attorney's license was turned down by the state's Committee of Bar Examiners, which judged him morally unfit for his new profession.
But an independent state bar court ruled in Glass's favor in July and the California Supreme Court has since agreed to hear the committee's appeal. No date for oral arguments has been set.
The bar association's lawyers said in written filings that even though Glass' transgressions occurred when he was in his 20s, his attempts at atonement were inadequate and in some cases coincided with the publication of his novel. They faulted him for never compensating anyone who was hurt by his falsehoods.
Stephen Glass, whose ethical missteps at The New Republic and other magazines were recounted in the film "Shattered Glass" and an autobiographical novel, has challenged the bar committee's decision to deny him a license to practice law, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Monday.
Glass attended law school at Georgetown University and passed California's bar exam in 2007. His application for an attorney's license was turned down by the state's Committee of Bar Examiners, which judged him morally unfit for his new profession.
But an independent state bar court ruled in Glass's favor in July and the California Supreme Court has since agreed to hear the committee's appeal. No date for oral arguments has been set.
The bar association's lawyers said in written filings that even though Glass' transgressions occurred when he was in his 20s, his attempts at atonement were inadequate and in some cases coincided with the publication of his novel. They faulted him for never compensating anyone who was hurt by his falsehoods.
Japanese whalers ask US courts to stop activists
Japanese whalers have asked a U.S. federal court judge in Seattle to
order the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society to stop disrupting its
whaling activities in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica.
The Tokyo-based Institute of Cetacean Research and others are seeking a U.S. court order to prevent the anti-whaling Sea Shepherd and its founder from engaging in activities at sea that could harm the crew and damage its vessels.
But U.S. District Court Judge Richard A. Jones has delayed hearing the institute's motion for a preliminary injunction by several weeks, granting a Sea Shepherd request for more time to respond. The judge set a hearing for Feb. 16.
"The violence and attacks from the Sea Shepherd have increased year by year," the institute's spokesman Gavin Carter in Washington, D.C., said Tuesday.
The Japanese companies had hoped to resolve the issue of maritime safety diplomatically, he said, but decided suing was the best course after its last whaling season was cut short by interference from protesters.
The Tokyo-based Institute of Cetacean Research and others are seeking a U.S. court order to prevent the anti-whaling Sea Shepherd and its founder from engaging in activities at sea that could harm the crew and damage its vessels.
But U.S. District Court Judge Richard A. Jones has delayed hearing the institute's motion for a preliminary injunction by several weeks, granting a Sea Shepherd request for more time to respond. The judge set a hearing for Feb. 16.
"The violence and attacks from the Sea Shepherd have increased year by year," the institute's spokesman Gavin Carter in Washington, D.C., said Tuesday.
The Japanese companies had hoped to resolve the issue of maritime safety diplomatically, he said, but decided suing was the best course after its last whaling season was cut short by interference from protesters.
Federal judge ends BP's probation for Alaska spill
A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed prosecutors' argument that a BP
subsidiary violated its probation after an oil spill because of another
spill on Alaska's North Slope.
Judge Ralph Beistline also lifted BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.'s probation altogether.
BP had been convicted of negligent discharge of oil in 2007 for a 200,000-gallon (757,000-liter) spill on the North Slope a year earlier. There was another spill of 13,500 gallons (51,100 liters) in 2009.
Last month, government lawyers sought to have BP's probation revoked for the latest spill, meaning the probation period could have been lengthened or the company could have faced additional penalties.
In his ruling, Beistline said the government failed to prove the company committed criminal negligence.
"We are pleased with the decision and appreciate the court's attention," BP spokesman Steve Rinehart said in an email to The Associated Press. "We know that the privilege of working in Alaska comes with a responsibility to maintain high standards. We will continue our commitment to running safe and compliant operations."
Emails seeking comment from the U.S. attorney's office in Anchorage were not immediately returned.
Prosecutors said BP's history of environmental crimes in Alaska began in February 2001 when it pleaded guilty to releasing hazardous materials at its Endicott facility on the North Slope. The company was fined $500,000, placed on probation for five years and ordered to create a nationwide environmental management program, prosecutors said.
Judge Ralph Beistline also lifted BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.'s probation altogether.
BP had been convicted of negligent discharge of oil in 2007 for a 200,000-gallon (757,000-liter) spill on the North Slope a year earlier. There was another spill of 13,500 gallons (51,100 liters) in 2009.
Last month, government lawyers sought to have BP's probation revoked for the latest spill, meaning the probation period could have been lengthened or the company could have faced additional penalties.
In his ruling, Beistline said the government failed to prove the company committed criminal negligence.
"We are pleased with the decision and appreciate the court's attention," BP spokesman Steve Rinehart said in an email to The Associated Press. "We know that the privilege of working in Alaska comes with a responsibility to maintain high standards. We will continue our commitment to running safe and compliant operations."
Emails seeking comment from the U.S. attorney's office in Anchorage were not immediately returned.
Prosecutors said BP's history of environmental crimes in Alaska began in February 2001 when it pleaded guilty to releasing hazardous materials at its Endicott facility on the North Slope. The company was fined $500,000, placed on probation for five years and ordered to create a nationwide environmental management program, prosecutors said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)