Posts Tagged ‘Class’

Buju Banton & Carol Gonzales – No Second Class (Action Riddim)

Buju Banton & Carol Gonzales – No Second Class (Action Riddim)

Incoming search terms:

• action riddim buju banton no second class descargar
• Buju Banton & Carol Gonzalez - No Second Class (Action Riddim)

Kingsley & Kingsley Launches New Web Site to Expand Practice into Consumer Class Actions

Encino, CA (PRWEB) May 24, 2010

A highly regarded Los Angeles law firm has introduced a new Web site, providing consumers with access to a wide range of news and information regarding the firm’s fast-growing consumer class action practice.

The new site was launched by Kingsley & Kingsley, a law firm that provides individuals and families throughout California with legal representation in employment matters, in dealing with their insurance company, or in connection with a personal injury they have suffered due to the fault of another.

The firm is well-respected for its work in representing plaintiffs with “wage and hour” disputes with their employers, such as protecting their rights to overtime, benefits and other job protections. The new site showcases the firm’s expansion into the area of consumer class action matters, in which they help consumers recover for the wrongs done to them and seek to force corporations to act responsibly toward the public.

“Consumers often feel that they are at the mercy of large corporations and that, although there may be laws designed to protect the consumer, there is little they can do when a product fails to perform as promised,” said Eric Kingsley, partner at Kingsley & Kingsley. “In these situations, the law provides for class action lawsuits by which a large group of people who have been mistreated may be represented in one lawsuit against a company. These types of cases are usually settled for large sums by the offending company, which typically changes its behavior after the lawsuit and no longer engages in the pattern of wrongful conduct.”

According to Kingsley, the firm’s new Web site includes a wide variety of news and information regarding its practice areas, as well as examples of specific cases the firm has handled for clients. These include current class action lawsuits involving Beck’s Furniture and E & J Gallo.

Since 1981, Kingsley & Kingsley has been dedicated to helping plaintiffs harmed by the negligence or wrongdoing of corporate America. Whether their client has suffered mistreatment in the workplace or been denied the insurance benefits to which they are rightfully entitled, the firm’s experienced attorneys have the skills and legal expertise to provide effective assistance. For more information, please call 888-500-8469 or go to www.kingsleykingsley.com.

# # #

Notice to All Medical Capital Holdings, Inc. Investors Regarding the Class Action Filed Against Securities America, Inc. from the Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA

Coral Gables (Vocus) October 3, 2009

The Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA (TGN) makes an announcement to all investors in Medical Capital Holdings, Inc. (“MCH”) concerning the class action lawsuit (Case No. 09-cv-1084) filed on September 18, 2009, in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors in the five Special Purpose Corporations, MP II, MP III, MP IV, MP V, and MP VI, (“SPCs”) created by MCH to raise capital through the offering of promissory notes. The class action names Securities America, Inc. among others, as a defendant, and alleges violations of Sections 12(a)(1) and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“the Act”). In selling unregistered MCH securities, the defendants were required by the Act to sell only to accredited investors. As it pertains to natural persons, an accredited investor has been defined as: (a) a person with an individual net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, of over $ 1 million at the time of purchase, or (b) a person whose individual income exceeds $ 200,000, or $ 300,000, jointly with his or her spouse, in the two years prior to the purchase at issue, together with a reasonable expectation of current income levels at the time of purchase. The first count of the class action alleges that Securities America, and others, violated the Act by selling an unregistered MCH security to non-accredited investors. In support thereof, the class action alleges that defendants were responsible for the distribution of MCH literature to the general public and the solicitation of various unaccredited investors, via invitational information sessions.

Count two of the class action alleges a violation of Section 12(a)(2). The alleged violation was due to the fact that the Private Placement Memorandums (“PPMs”), which the lawsuit alleges constituted a prospectus within the meaning of Section 12 of the Securities Act, contained, among other things, “untrue statements of material fact and omitted other material facts concerning the use to which investor funds would be put.” This information, according to the class action, was essential to make the statements in the PPMs not misleading. In connection with the second count, the class action asserts the defendant’s owed the Plaintiffs the duty to make a “reasonable and diligent” inquiry to ascertain whether the information contained in the PPMs was accurate.

Investors should consider whether an individual securities arbitration claim filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is a more effective method (than a class action) to recover their investment losses. The brokerage firms who distributed the securities issued by MCH and its affiliated entities were obligated to conduct due diligence of facts concerning the risks associated with the investments. Financial advisors told many investors that these securities were suitable for current income investment objectives. Brokerage firms are obligated to give, and investors are entitled to rely upon brokerage firms for, competent, suitable investment advice in accordance with FINRA Rules and Regulations. Recommendations of unsuitable investments and/or failure to conduct adequate due diligence are both causes of action that form the basis for individual securities arbitration claims filed with FINRA.

The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, is a nationally recognized, Martindale Hubbell “AV” rated securities law firm. To request a confidential consultation from a TGN attorney to assist you in determining whether you have a viable individual claim for investment losses that exceed $ 100,000 from a full service brokerage account, contact us on our website. To speak directly with an attorney, call (800) 578-0137 and ask for Benjamin Fernandez, Esquire.

###

Related Class Action Press Releases

Incoming search terms:

• MPII HOLDINGS INC

Notice to All Medical Capital Holdings, Inc. Investors Regarding the Class Action Filed Against Securities America, Inc. from the Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA

Coral Gables (Vocus) October 3, 2009

The Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA (TGN) makes an announcement to all investors in Medical Capital Holdings, Inc. (“MCH”) concerning the class action lawsuit (Case No. 09-cv-1084) filed on September 18, 2009, in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors in the five Special Purpose Corporations, MP II, MP III, MP IV, MP V, and MP VI, (“SPCs”) created by MCH to raise capital through the offering of promissory notes. The class action names Securities America, Inc. among others, as a defendant, and alleges violations of Sections 12(a)(1) and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“the Act”). In selling unregistered MCH securities, the defendants were required by the Act to sell only to accredited investors. As it pertains to natural persons, an accredited investor has been defined as: (a) a person with an individual net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, of over $ 1 million at the time of purchase, or (b) a person whose individual income exceeds $ 200,000, or $ 300,000, jointly with his or her spouse, in the two years prior to the purchase at issue, together with a reasonable expectation of current income levels at the time of purchase. The first count of the class action alleges that Securities America, and others, violated the Act by selling an unregistered MCH security to non-accredited investors. In support thereof, the class action alleges that defendants were responsible for the distribution of MCH literature to the general public and the solicitation of various unaccredited investors, via invitational information sessions.

Count two of the class action alleges a violation of Section 12(a)(2). The alleged violation was due to the fact that the Private Placement Memorandums (“PPMs”), which the lawsuit alleges constituted a prospectus within the meaning of Section 12 of the Securities Act, contained, among other things, “untrue statements of material fact and omitted other material facts concerning the use to which investor funds would be put.” This information, according to the class action, was essential to make the statements in the PPMs not misleading. In connection with the second count, the class action asserts the defendant’s owed the Plaintiffs the duty to make a “reasonable and diligent” inquiry to ascertain whether the information contained in the PPMs was accurate.

Investors should consider whether an individual securities arbitration claim filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is a more effective method (than a class action) to recover their investment losses. The brokerage firms who distributed the securities issued by MCH and its affiliated entities were obligated to conduct due diligence of facts concerning the risks associated with the investments. Financial advisors told many investors that these securities were suitable for current income investment objectives. Brokerage firms are obligated to give, and investors are entitled to rely upon brokerage firms for, competent, suitable investment advice in accordance with FINRA Rules and Regulations. Recommendations of unsuitable investments and/or failure to conduct adequate due diligence are both causes of action that form the basis for individual securities arbitration claims filed with FINRA.

The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, is a nationally recognized, Martindale Hubbell “AV” rated securities law firm. To request a confidential consultation from a TGN attorney to assist you in determining whether you have a viable individual claim for investment losses that exceed $ 100,000 from a full service brokerage account, contact us on our website. To speak directly with an attorney, call (800) 578-0137 and ask for Benjamin Fernandez, Esquire.

###

Lastest “class Action” News

M may settle Dick’s Sporting Goods lawsuits

A federal court filing in New York shows Pennsylvania-based Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit and 22 related state lawsuits brought by current and former employees who say they weren’t properly paid overtime and were made to work through breaks.

Read more on Philly.com

Parents File Suit Against Compton Schools

Six parents are suing the Compton Unified School District, claiming district officials are violating their right to a quality education by allegedly trying to obstruct an effort to convert a failing elementary school to a charter school.

Read more on CBS 2 Los Angeles

Notice to All Medical Capital Holdings, Inc. Investors Regarding the Class Action Filed Against Securities America, Inc. from the Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA

Coral Gables (Vocus) October 3, 2009

The Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA (TGN) makes an announcement to all investors in Medical Capital Holdings, Inc. (“MCH”) concerning the class action lawsuit (Case No. 09-cv-1084) filed on September 18, 2009, in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors in the five Special Purpose Corporations, MP II, MP III, MP IV, MP V, and MP VI, (“SPCs”) created by MCH to raise capital through the offering of promissory notes. The class action names Securities America, Inc. among others, as a defendant, and alleges violations of Sections 12(a)(1) and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“the Act”). In selling unregistered MCH securities, the defendants were required by the Act to sell only to accredited investors. As it pertains to natural persons, an accredited investor has been defined as: (a) a person with an individual net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, of over $ 1 million at the time of purchase, or (b) a person whose individual income exceeds $ 200,000, or $ 300,000, jointly with his or her spouse, in the two years prior to the purchase at issue, together with a reasonable expectation of current income levels at the time of purchase. The first count of the class action alleges that Securities America, and others, violated the Act by selling an unregistered MCH security to non-accredited investors. In support thereof, the class action alleges that defendants were responsible for the distribution of MCH literature to the general public and the solicitation of various unaccredited investors, via invitational information sessions.

Count two of the class action alleges a violation of Section 12(a)(2). The alleged violation was due to the fact that the Private Placement Memorandums (“PPMs”), which the lawsuit alleges constituted a prospectus within the meaning of Section 12 of the Securities Act, contained, among other things, “untrue statements of material fact and omitted other material facts concerning the use to which investor funds would be put.” This information, according to the class action, was essential to make the statements in the PPMs not misleading. In connection with the second count, the class action asserts the defendant’s owed the Plaintiffs the duty to make a “reasonable and diligent” inquiry to ascertain whether the information contained in the PPMs was accurate.

Investors should consider whether an individual securities arbitration claim filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is a more effective method (than a class action) to recover their investment losses. The brokerage firms who distributed the securities issued by MCH and its affiliated entities were obligated to conduct due diligence of facts concerning the risks associated with the investments. Financial advisors told many investors that these securities were suitable for current income investment objectives. Brokerage firms are obligated to give, and investors are entitled to rely upon brokerage firms for, competent, suitable investment advice in accordance with FINRA Rules and Regulations. Recommendations of unsuitable investments and/or failure to conduct adequate due diligence are both causes of action that form the basis for individual securities arbitration claims filed with FINRA.

The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, is a nationally recognized, Martindale Hubbell “AV” rated securities law firm. To request a confidential consultation from a TGN attorney to assist you in determining whether you have a viable individual claim for investment losses that exceed $ 100,000 from a full service brokerage account, contact us on our website. To speak directly with an attorney, call (800) 578-0137 and ask for Benjamin Fernandez, Esquire.

###

Is the Nuva Ring Class Action Lawsuit Based on the Correct Premise?

Is the Nuva Ring Class Action Lawsuit Based on the Correct Premise?

The Nuva ring class action lawsuit against Organon may not turn out the way a Nuva Ring lawyer expect it to be. The lawsuit is being filed based on negligence to educate its users on the effects of the third generation hormone as a birth preventing substance. Since this is a form of lawsuit where a lot of injured Nuva Ring users will collectively bring their grievances to US courts, other developments may have already affected the chances of the Nuva ring class action lawsuit to flourish before it could collectively verify legitimate complaints

The NuvaRing lawyer bases his arguments on the premise that the Nuva Ring user may not have known enough about the potency of the hormone in the product. The drug company in return, vouches that what they indicated in the product insert are in accordance with FDA labeling prescription.

Even before the publicity or uproar over the side effects of Nuva Ring came into public focus, an information campaign was launched by then Vice Pres. Al Gore to help the consumers learn more about medications.  It was stressed that over-the-counter drugs and drug cosmetics of these companies should follow the prescribed system of labeling thus listing the components with explanations as to which among these ingredients could help cure ailments.  The FDA regulation placed much emphasis on essential information as basis for a well-informed decision in availing medications and cosmetics for family health care.

Based on the information above, there is apparently an effort to provide easy to understand information as basis for consumer’s decision to purchase medication.  Medical experts are one in saying that a birth control pill is basically harmful if administered to the wrong person. Hence, the public has always been warned to consult personal health care specialists or physicians before drugs or any known potentially harmful device is ingested or utilized for our health care. 

With this conscious effort, filing for Nuva ring class action is no longer a prerogative.

A Nuva Ring lawyer may mean well in gathering all Nuva Ring injured customers to file an organized Nuva ring class action lawsuit. However, there are some mistakes to be learned here.   The future will still find us needing medication for an ailment or another. Information is free, read the labels and ask a doctor. Filing a Nuva ring class action lawsuit with a NuvaRing lawyer is just one of the available options but some may find it tedious.

Find More Class Action Articles

Notice to All Medical Capital Holdings, Inc. Investors Regarding the Class Action Filed Against Securities America, Inc. from the Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA

Coral Gables (Vocus) October 3, 2009

The Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA (TGN) makes an announcement to all investors in Medical Capital Holdings, Inc. (“MCH”) concerning the class action lawsuit (Case No. 09-cv-1084) filed on September 18, 2009, in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors in the five Special Purpose Corporations, MP II, MP III, MP IV, MP V, and MP VI, (“SPCs”) created by MCH to raise capital through the offering of promissory notes. The class action names Securities America, Inc. among others, as a defendant, and alleges violations of Sections 12(a)(1) and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“the Act”). In selling unregistered MCH securities, the defendants were required by the Act to sell only to accredited investors. As it pertains to natural persons, an accredited investor has been defined as: (a) a person with an individual net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, of over $ 1 million at the time of purchase, or (b) a person whose individual income exceeds $ 200,000, or $ 300,000, jointly with his or her spouse, in the two years prior to the purchase at issue, together with a reasonable expectation of current income levels at the time of purchase. The first count of the class action alleges that Securities America, and others, violated the Act by selling an unregistered MCH security to non-accredited investors. In support thereof, the class action alleges that defendants were responsible for the distribution of MCH literature to the general public and the solicitation of various unaccredited investors, via invitational information sessions.

Count two of the class action alleges a violation of Section 12(a)(2). The alleged violation was due to the fact that the Private Placement Memorandums (“PPMs”), which the lawsuit alleges constituted a prospectus within the meaning of Section 12 of the Securities Act, contained, among other things, “untrue statements of material fact and omitted other material facts concerning the use to which investor funds would be put.” This information, according to the class action, was essential to make the statements in the PPMs not misleading. In connection with the second count, the class action asserts the defendant’s owed the Plaintiffs the duty to make a “reasonable and diligent” inquiry to ascertain whether the information contained in the PPMs was accurate.

Investors should consider whether an individual securities arbitration claim filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is a more effective method (than a class action) to recover their investment losses. The brokerage firms who distributed the securities issued by MCH and its affiliated entities were obligated to conduct due diligence of facts concerning the risks associated with the investments. Financial advisors told many investors that these securities were suitable for current income investment objectives. Brokerage firms are obligated to give, and investors are entitled to rely upon brokerage firms for, competent, suitable investment advice in accordance with FINRA Rules and Regulations. Recommendations of unsuitable investments and/or failure to conduct adequate due diligence are both causes of action that form the basis for individual securities arbitration claims filed with FINRA.

The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, is a nationally recognized, Martindale Hubbell “AV” rated securities law firm. To request a confidential consultation from a TGN attorney to assist you in determining whether you have a viable individual claim for investment losses that exceed $ 100,000 from a full service brokerage account, contact us on our website. To speak directly with an attorney, call (800) 578-0137 and ask for Benjamin Fernandez, Esquire.

###

Westwood College Class Action Update – For-Profit School Investigation Coverage

Westwood College Class Action Updates – For-Profit Colleges have received an onslaught of media coverage following the Senate Hearings on the Government Accounting Office findings of fraud by 15 of 15 schools sampled.

Animated segment from the documentary Class Action: How 44 Students Learned to Change the World. Produced at Henderson Annex Elementary, 2009.

Incoming search terms:

• Do Class Actions help for-profit students?
• westwood college investigation
• westwood college update

Class action lawsuit for British Petroleum

Class action lawsuit for British Petroleum

The 20th of Apr was a really terrible day with regard to BP as well as the implications with this man-made catastrophe are increasingly being felt however
may undoubtedly continue and worsen before the spill is safely contained, fixed and individuals will be paid out.

As everyone knows the Deepwater Horizon oil rig had been established off the cost of The united states and to be honest there may not have been a worse area for there being a massive oil leak. British petroleum will need to navigate its way through a labyrinth of legal cases and class action lawsuits against them, as well as the American government which probably carries a very low view with the company by now.

The newest breaking news concerning the oil leak is BP’s decision to cover the building of 6 sand barriers off the coastline of the US state of Louisiana in an attempt to guard the fragile wetlands.

At this stage the oil slick has hit Louisiana, a small part of Mississippi, Alabama and is now likely to reach Florida within a few days and it might seem people are already preparing their own legal cases.

Numerous dining establishments from Louisiana and Florida are determined to take a proactive step to recovery by filing a class action suit against British petroleum, which the U.S. Coast Guard has identified as the actual “accountable party,” in line with the Oil Pollution Act.

The class action, dated May eighteen, had been submitted with respect to many plaintiffs who are restaurant owners and others inside the sea food service industry who have or will probably experience lost profits due to the succeeding oil spill following the tragedy with the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

BP also hired employees that will help tidy up the oil leak, both to the sea surface and also on land. It did not take too much time before workers starting becoming hospitalised in increasing numbers with high blood pressure, nausea as well as thumping headaches.

Lots of the employees BP hired were fishing crews and so they received a dispersant known as Corexit, which is supposed to break the oil into small droplets which are biodegradable. The organization which produces the product and BP claim it is safe, but just to be on the safe side Government agencies have requested BP to restrict its use.

If British petroleum believed the worst was over, they were completely wrong. The “top kill” strategy which has so far failed was obviously a real setback to the organization. Every second the leak continues only adds to an already giant bill which BP will have to foot.

While the oil continues to leak BP takes hits from all directions. The share price has had to deal with enormous amounts wiped from the company’s worth. They’re losing the very thing they went drilling for in huge quantities, they have arranged to pay for all of the clean-up costs, which will go well past billion dollars.

11 people passed away when the oil rig erupted and it’s currently the largest man-made disaster in the nation’s history. President barack obama and his administration were less than impressed by BP having missed deadline after deadline to fix the leak. The credit rating agency, Fitch has reduced British petroleum from an AA rating to AA.

It’s highly plausible that BP are going to be continuing to clear up the physical destruction from the oil leak for several weeks and it might take many years before the legal mess has been sorted out because class action lawsuits are going to be coming in the thick and fast.