|
|
|
Court to decide if deportation ruling retroactive
Law Firm News |
2012/05/01 10:08
|
The Supreme Court will decide whether to apply retroactively its 2010 decision that immigrants have a right to be told that a guilty plea could lead to their deportation.
The high court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from Roselva Chaidez, who was in the process of being deported when the court made that March 2010 decision.
Chaidez pleaded guilty to fraud in 2004 after falsely claiming to be a passenger in a car wreck. Authorities started deportation procedures while she was applying for U.S. citizenship in 2007.
Her lawyer never told her that her fraud conviction may lead to her deportation. Chaidez says she should be able to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision that cemented that principle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Class Action
Law Firm News |
2012/01/10 09:55
|
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.nbsp; 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme court won't let man appeal murder conviction
Law Firm News |
2012/01/10 09:55
|
The Supreme Court won't let a man sentenced to prison for murder appeal his conviction despite his complaints that his window for further consideration was unfairly closed.
The high court on Tuesday upheld the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez.
Gonzalez appealed his conviction for murder and his 30-year sentence in 2006 but missed one of the state lower court appeals deadlines. The federal courts since then have refused to hear his appeal, saying he filed in federal court one month after the required one-year deadline.
The courts started counting from the day Gonzalez missed the state court deadline, but the inmate said they should have started counting after the Texas courts officially declared his case over.
The high court said that the lower courts had correctly calculated the deadline for Gonzalez to file. Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote that Gonzalez's one-year deadline to appeal to the federal court began when he missed the state court filing date. Since Gonzalez filed one month after that one-year cutoff, the judgment against him became final, she said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Court Rejects Prisoner Lawsuit
Law Firm News |
2012/01/08 09:56
|
The Supreme Court won't allow employees at a privately run federal prison to be sued by an inmate in federal court despite his complaint that their neglect left him with two permanently damaged arms.
The high court ruled 8-1 to throw out the federal lawsuit by inmate Richard Lee Pollard against employees of GEO Group Inc., formerly known as Wackenhut Corrections Corp. Mr. Pollard wanted to sue for his treatment after he fell and fractured both of his elbows at the privately run Taft Correctional Institution in Taft, Calif.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court that Mr. Pollard should have sued in state court, where there would be significant deterrence and compensation if he could prove GEO officials mistreated him. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
