N. Idaho woman pleads guilty to embezzling

Topics in Legal News 2011/11/12 11:20   Bookmark and Share
A northern Idaho woman has pleaded guilty to embezzling more than $260,000 from Coldwater Creek.

Susan Alene Hopkins, also known as Susan Scott, pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft on Thursday. The Bonner County Daily Bee reports  that a second grand theft count is being dismissed as part of the deal.

Authorities say the former Coldwater Creek executive used a company credit card to embezzle the money between 2006 and 2010. Police say she also took money from the Panhandle Alliance For Education between 2008 and 2010.

The 54-year-old Hopkins is scheduled to be sentenced in February. Prosecutors are recommending a suspended prison term of three to 10 years and 90 days in jail.

The plea agreement also calls for Hopkins to repay $251,943.
top

First U.S. class-action overdraft fee case settles

Court Watch 2011/11/12 09:39   Bookmark and Share
Union Bank, part of Japan's Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc , agreed to pay $35 million to settle the first class-action lawsuit arising from nationwide litigation accusing lenders of charging excessive overdraft fees.

The litigation consolidates lawsuits filed against more than two dozen U.S., Canadian and European lenders such as JPMorgan Chase & Co , Citigroup Inc and Wells Fargo & Co .

It accuses lenders of routinely processing transactions from largest to smallest rather than in chronological order. This can cause account balances to fall more quickly, and overdraft fees, typically $25 or $35, to pile up faster.

A notice of the Union Bank settlement was filed on Wednesday with the U.S. District Court in Miami. The settlement requires approval by U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King, who oversees the litigation.

King granted class certification in the Union Bank case in July. That meant that customers, estimated in the tens of thousands, could sue the San Francisco-based bank as a group.

top

SearchMedia Announces Settlement on Securities Class Action

Court Watch 2011/11/11 09:39   Bookmark and Share
SearchMedia Holdings Limited, one of China's leading nationwide multi-platform media companies, today announced that it reached a tentative partial settlement agreement for a securities class action lawsuit pending against the Company and a number of its current and former directors, officers and employees.

The securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Murdeshwar v. SearchMedia Holdings Limited, et al., Case no. 1:11-cv-20549-KMW) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in relation to various disclosures regarding the Company's acquisition of SearchMedia International Ltd. and the financial condition of that company.

The partial settlement agreement is made on behalf of the defendants who served as directors and officers of Ideation Acquisition Corp. (the "Settling Defendants") without any admission of wrongdoing on the part of the Settling Defendants and provides for a settlement fund of $2.75 million, which the Company expects to be entirely funded by its insurance carriers. The partial settlement agreement remains subject to court approval and certain other conditions including execution of a stipulation of settlement, notice to class members, and an opportunity for class members to object or opt out of the settlement.

The securities class action lawsuit remains pending against other defendants who reside in China and who have not been served with the complaint and summons.
top

Court says nothing about health care appeal

Headline Legal News 2011/11/11 09:39   Bookmark and Share
The Supreme Court is not immediately saying whether it will make an election-year determination on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Justices met in private conference Thursday to consider new cases to hear next year. Appeals surrounding the health care overhaul were on the list to be discussed, but there was no announcement as to whether the hot-button issue had even been discussed.

The next opportunity justices have to reveal when or if they will hear a health care overhaul appeal is on Monday.

Lower courts have ruled in conflicting ways on the new law and its requirement that individuals buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.

If the court decides to take the case, oral arguments could come as early as March.
top

Court likely to overturn Calif. law on livestock

Court News 2011/11/10 09:41   Bookmark and Share
The Supreme Court seemed ready Wednesday to block a California law that would require euthanizing downed livestock at federally inspected slaughterhouses to keep the meat out of the nation's food system.

The court heard an appeal from the National Meat Association, which wants a 2009 state law blocked from going into effect. California barred the purchase, sale and butchering of animals that can't walk and required slaughterhouses under the threat of fines and jail time to immediately kill nonambulatory animals.

But justices said that encroached on federal laws that don't require immediate euthanizing.

"The federal law does not require me immediately to go over and euthanize the cow. Your law does require me to go over and immediately euthanize the cow. And therefore, your law seems an additional requirement in respect to the operations of a federally inspected meatpacking facility," Justice Stephen Breyer told a California lawyer.
top

Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action

Headline Legal News 2011/11/10 09:40   Bookmark and Share
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action (CV 11 5399 RS) filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Diamond during the period from December 9, 2010 through and including November 4, 2011 (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased DMND securities during the Class Period, you have until January 6, 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, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company overstated its earnings by improperly accounting for certain crop payments to walnut growers; (2) the Company's acquisition of Pringles snack business would be delayed; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., 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 70 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 class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.
top









Disclaimer: Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nothing submitted as a comment is confidential. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites.

Affordable Law Firm Website Design