Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit

Legal Marketing 2011/08/23 10:26   Bookmark and Share
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against SinoTech Energy Limited in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) of SinoTech pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”) on November 3, 2010, including open-market purchasers of SinoTech ADSs between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

The Complaint charges SinoTech, certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. SinoTech provides enhanced oil recovery services to oil companies in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that certain representations made in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially inaccurate. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company’s reported sales and revenues were materially inaccurate, because the nature, size and scope of the Company’s business was materially exaggerated.

On August 16, 2011, a research report was published on the Internet questioning SinoTech’s previously issued financial statements and future prospects. The report alleged that: (1) SinoTech’s sole import agent, accounting for over $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, appears to be an empty shell company with no sign of operation, a limited import history and negligible revenue base; (2) the Company’s only chemical supplier is an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company’s five largest subcontracting customers, which provide the vast majority of SinoTech’s revenues, appear to be shell companies with unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; and (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions.

On this news, ADSs of SinoTech declined more than 40%, to close on August 16, 2011, at $2.35 per share. Thereafter, NASDAQ halted trading of the Company’s stock.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased ADSs of SinoTech between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until October 18, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
top

Nathaniel D. Johnson - Maryland Attorney

Legal Marketing 2011/01/19 22:56   Bookmark and Share

Experience

Civil Rights Attorney for the Michigan House of Representative Judiciary Committee.

• Drafted statewide civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation.
• Advised State of Michigan elected officials on the political and policy implications of proposed legislation.
• Served as a liaison to special interests and community groups inviting their participation in the formation of public policy.

Bar Admissions

• Maryland
• U.S. District Court District of Maryland
• U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia
• U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit

Education

• Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Lansing, Michigan J.D.
• Wayne State University Law School, Detroit, Michigan LL.M. (pending)
• Bowie State University, Bowie, Maryland B.S.

The Law Firm of Nathaniel D. Johnson L.L.C. represents both private and public sector employees across the United States. The law firm’s representations range from negotiating severance and settlement agreements to litigation on behalf of employees in a variety of forums that include the following:

- Appellate actions.
- Group and class actions.
--State and federal court jurisdictions.

http://www.nathanieldjohnson.com/attorney-profile


top

What is an Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) license?

Legal Marketing 2010/12/16 14:40   Bookmark and Share

In the United States, the ocean transportation industry is one of the last transportation-related industries which has not been fully deregulated by the Congress. Beginning in the 1970‘s, Congress passed a series of laws which gradually removed regulatory oversight of other transportation industries (air, truck and rail). Although the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 continued the trend of reducing regulatory requirements in the ocean transportation world, several important provisions of law were left intact, especially with respect to Ocean Transportation Intermediaries (OTIs). Three of the important provisions applicable to OTIs are the requirements be licensed, bonded and to publish rates in a tariff.

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or “the Commission”) is the independent regulatory agency responsible for regulating all ocean transportation in U.S. foreign commerce. An OTI may either be an ocean freight forwarder or a non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC). The distinction between a freight forwarder and an NVOCC is not always an easy one to make but both entities are required to have an FMC license before providing ocean transportation services in the United States. Freight forwarders dispatch shipments and book or arrange space for cargo on behalf of shippers while an NVOCC is a common carrier that holds itself out to the public to provide ocean transportation. The NVOCC issues its own house bills of lading but does not actually own or operate the vessels which carry the cargo. An NVOCC that is not based in the U.S. is not required to be licensed but may choose to obtain one since having a license results in lesser bond requirements. An entity can be both a freight forwarder and an NVOCC but is generally prohibited from receiving compensation for serving in both roles on the same transaction.

To obtain a license, a prospective OTI submits an application to the FMC. All applicants must designate a qualifying individual with at least three years of experience. This individual must be an officer, sole proprietor or partner in the applicant’s organization. After submission, the application is reviewed and an investigation is completed by the FMC. The applicant is also required to submit proof of financial responsibility, usually in the form a bond. The required bond amount depends on the type of license acquired ($50,000 for a freight forwarder or $75,000 for an NVOCC).

Once a license has been issued, NVOCCs are presently required to publish an electronic tariff which shows all of its rates and charges. Tariffs may, however, soon become a thing of the past. If you have ever attempted to locate a particular rate for a particular route and commodity in an electronic tariff, you know firsthand why many in the industry have questioned the continued utility of tariffs in today’s market environment. In 2010, the FMC responded to industry concerns by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would relieve licensed NVOCCs from the cost and burden of publishing a tariff so long as the NVOCC met certain conditions. The action comes following the petition of a national trade association and has the support of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Commission received comments in response to the Notice and a decision is expected sometime later this year.

Operating without a license, bond or tariff can result in significant civil penalties. If proven, each violation or shipment is subject to a maximum civil penalty of $30,000. In one recent case, a company paid a $25,000 penalty in a settlement with the Commission for acting as an NVOCC without a license and without proof of financial responsibility. If you have questions about whether any of these requirements apply to your organization, you should consult an experienced Florida maritime lawyer.

top

Menzer & Hill, P.A. - Securities Attorneys

Legal Marketing 2010/09/01 11:48   Bookmark and Share
Menzer & Hill, P.A. represents investors in the recovery of losses at the result of brokerage firms' failure to supervise their financial advisors who engage in unsuitable investment recommendations, the excessive trading of investors' accounts, inappropriate allocation of portfolio assets, misrepresentations

and/or material omissions of fact resulting in fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duties, selling away, failure to advise their clients of risk management strategies and excessive use of margin.

In addition to their legal and arbitration experience, the attorneys and founding partners of Menzer & Hill, P.A. bring with them extensive securities industry experience which

include in-house and chief corporate brokerage counsel, chief compliance officer supervising and regulating the practice of stockbrokers and financial advisors, as well as sales experience with advising clients and recommending the sale of securities and insurance.  The attorneys and founding partners have essentially switched hats where they once represented the industry and broker-dealers, they now represent aggrieved investors.  This yields a unique experience giving the firm intimate knowledge of the misconduct of

brokers and the details and nuances of the securities and insurance products they recommend.

Attorneys
top

Legal Talk Show, Lawyer Websites - William Lerach

Legal Marketing 2010/08/17 19:25   Bookmark and Share

For more than 20 years, William S. Lerach was the most feared lawyer in America. He and his former firm, Milberg Weiss, were Jedi masters of security law, targeting Fortune 500 companies for corporate fraud and recovering a staggering $45 billion in judgments.

Tough and relentless, plaintiffs saw him as a savior, successfully suing WorldCom, Tyco, Disney,Merrill Lynch and Enron, among others. Lerach brought down high-flying CEOs and companies that routinely cooked the books to keep executives rich and shareholders broke. Famous for his class-action suits and novel legal tactics, he was the scourge of big business, forcing many companies, terrified of being “Lerached,” to settle out of court rather than fight.

In January 2008, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice, admitting he paid a few regular plaintiffs millions in kickbacks to instigate cases that netted the firm some $200 million over two decades. (No plaintiff can benefit more than others in class-action suits.) He was fined nearly $8 million and sentenced to two years in prison.  He was just released in March 2010.
Lerach was famous for tracking stock prices — charting fluctuations against optimistic statements and insider selling — before a stock crashed. If company chiefs cashed in while investors lost their savings, Lerach smelled blood. If public investments were fueled by false claims, the charge was “fraud on the market.” Plus, any investment bank and Big 8 accounting firm that aided and abetted the principles were charged as secondary participants, unleashing a legal juggernaut.

Bill talks about himself,   the legal profession, and  his contributions on behalf of investors everywhere.
If there was ever a modern Greek tragedy about a man and his times, about corporate arrogance and illusions and the scorched-earth tactics to not only counteract corporate America but to beat it at its own game, Bill Lerach's story is it. 

attorney web site design

http://www.legalnewsbrief.blogspot.com

http://www.lawfirmmarketingnews.blogspot.com

http://metrolinkcomesclean.blogspot.com/

http://metrolinkclassaction.blogspot.com/

top

Better Investing Through Social Media

Legal Marketing 2010/08/07 09:30   Bookmark and Share
“Social Media” is the new buzz word du jour. Facebook now has over 500 million members. Twitter users send over 65 million “tweets” every day. And according to Nielsen.com, people spend more time on social networks than any other online service, including email.
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