Networking company Cisco said Wednesday that it is challenging
Microsoft's $8.5 billion takeover of Skype at the European Union's top
court to ensure Microsoft won't block other video conferencing services.
Microsoft completed the deal in October shortly after the European
Commission, the EU's competition regulator, cleared the takeover.
Microsoft Corp. hopes that owning Skype will allow it to better compete
with other tech giants including Apple Inc. or Google Inc.
But for Cisco Systems Inc., the world's largest maker of computer
networking equipment, the Skype deal creates a serious challenger to its
video conferencing systems.
"Cisco does not oppose the merger, but believes the European Commission
should have placed conditions that would ensure greater standards-based
interoperability," Marthin De Beer, the head of Cisco's video
conferencing division, wrote in a blog post.
Video conferencing equipment is a relatively small part of Cisco's
overall sales, but it's growing rapidly. Cisco's latest major
acquisition was of Tandberg, a Norwegian maker of video conferencing
equipment. Cisco spent $3.4 billion for the company in 2010.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Las Vegas, Nevada Litigation Attorneys
Maier Gutierrez Ayon is a Las Vegas, Nevada based law firm committed to representing clients in the areas of personal injury, wrongful death, product liability, medical malpractice, business and real estate litigation, bankruptcy, and employment law.
Firm founders Jason Maier, Joseph Gutierrez and Luis Ayon began their careers at large law firms representing national and international clients in a variety of matters, including personal injury and product liability litigation, business and commercial litigation, contract disputes, real estate litigation, medical malpractice and pharmaceutical litigation, employment litigation, and bankruptcy. With this experience and a track record of success, Maier Gutierrez Ayon has the unique ability to provide you with the personal attention you deserve while offering the diverse, proven legal experience found in a large law firm.
Attorney advertisement. The material and information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages is intended to provide general information only and not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. You are advised that the acts of sending e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship
Firm founders Jason Maier, Joseph Gutierrez and Luis Ayon began their careers at large law firms representing national and international clients in a variety of matters, including personal injury and product liability litigation, business and commercial litigation, contract disputes, real estate litigation, medical malpractice and pharmaceutical litigation, employment litigation, and bankruptcy. With this experience and a track record of success, Maier Gutierrez Ayon has the unique ability to provide you with the personal attention you deserve while offering the diverse, proven legal experience found in a large law firm.
Attorney advertisement. The material and information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages is intended to provide general information only and not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. You are advised that the acts of sending e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action
has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of
purchasers of Collective Brands, Inc. common stock during the period
between December 1, 2010 and May 24, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/collectivebrands/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Collective Brands and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collective Brands is the holding company for three lines of business: Payless ShoeSource (“Payless”), Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (“PLG”), and Collective Licensing. The Company was formerly known as Payless ShoeSource, Inc. and changed its name to Collective Brands in August 2007.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Collective Brands stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $23.44 per share on February 18, 2011.
On May 24, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted earnings per share expected by analysts. The Company further reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless domestic segment, offset by sales growth of 22.5% in PLG. On this news, Collective Brands stock collapsed $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 17%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s inventory level for Payless remained at excessively high levels and aging inventory for its Payless segment was a concern; (b) sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores were significantly worse than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and (c) the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s bloated inventory at significant discounts, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Collective Brands common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/collectivebrands/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Collective Brands and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collective Brands is the holding company for three lines of business: Payless ShoeSource (“Payless”), Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (“PLG”), and Collective Licensing. The Company was formerly known as Payless ShoeSource, Inc. and changed its name to Collective Brands in August 2007.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Collective Brands stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $23.44 per share on February 18, 2011.
On May 24, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted earnings per share expected by analysts. The Company further reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless domestic segment, offset by sales growth of 22.5% in PLG. On this news, Collective Brands stock collapsed $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 17%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s inventory level for Payless remained at excessively high levels and aging inventory for its Payless segment was a concern; (b) sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores were significantly worse than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and (c) the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s bloated inventory at significant discounts, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Collective Brands common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
NY court: Judge can't block $18B Ecuador judgment
A judge overstepped his authority when he tried to ban enforcement
around the world of an $18 billion judgment against Chevron Inc. for
environmental damage in Ecuador, a federal appeals court said Thursday
as it explained why it lifted the ban last year.
The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the judge has authority to block collection if Ecuadorean plaintiffs move against Chevron in New York, but law does not give him authority "to dictate to the entire world which judgments are entitled to respect and which countries' courts are to be treated as international pariahs."
The judgment came last February after nearly two decades of litigation that stemmed from the poisoning of land in the Ecuadorean rainforest while the oil company Texaco was operating an oil consortium from 1972 to 1990 in the Amazon. Texaco became a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron in 2001.
Chevron obtained an order from U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan last March blocking Ecuadorean plaintiffs from trying to collect the $18 billion until he could stage a trial to determine if the judgment was obtained fairly.
The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the judge has authority to block collection if Ecuadorean plaintiffs move against Chevron in New York, but law does not give him authority "to dictate to the entire world which judgments are entitled to respect and which countries' courts are to be treated as international pariahs."
The judgment came last February after nearly two decades of litigation that stemmed from the poisoning of land in the Ecuadorean rainforest while the oil company Texaco was operating an oil consortium from 1972 to 1990 in the Amazon. Texaco became a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron in 2001.
Chevron obtained an order from U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan last March blocking Ecuadorean plaintiffs from trying to collect the $18 billion until he could stage a trial to determine if the judgment was obtained fairly.
Man gets car ban after 4 children found in trunk
A British court has banned a man from driving for a year after he was
caught traveling with four children in the trunk of his car.
Britain's Press Association news agency said Thursday that police found a total of 11 people in Zoltan Lakatos' Audi A4 when they stopped him in the English city of Leicester last year.
One passenger was in the driver's seat, three adults and two children were squeezed into the back, and officers discovered four more children in the trunk.
The news agency says Lakatos was convicted of endangering his passengers and of driving without insurance earlier this week at Leicester Magistrates' Court. He also was fined 1,325 pounds (about $2,080).
The agency said the 38-year-old was not in court for the ruling.
Britain's Press Association news agency said Thursday that police found a total of 11 people in Zoltan Lakatos' Audi A4 when they stopped him in the English city of Leicester last year.
One passenger was in the driver's seat, three adults and two children were squeezed into the back, and officers discovered four more children in the trunk.
The news agency says Lakatos was convicted of endangering his passengers and of driving without insurance earlier this week at Leicester Magistrates' Court. He also was fined 1,325 pounds (about $2,080).
The agency said the 38-year-old was not in court for the ruling.
Defamation suit filed against pen-named Utah mayor
A Utah mayor who wrote news stories under a false identify is being sued for defamation.
In court papers, Chris Hogan alleges an article by West Valley City Mayor Mike Winder falsely claimed he was accused of extortion and fired from UTOPIA, a fiber-optic network formed by 16 Utah cities.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City seeks a trial, compensation for lost wages and punitive damages.
Among the lawsuit's 14 defendants is Deseret Digital Media, which published Winder's stories under the alias Richard Burwash.
The company's CEO Clark Gilbert has said company officials "deeply regret" the mayor misrepresented himself.
Winder promoted his city and even quoted himself in stories he wrote.
Winder said on Thursday he disputes Hogan's claims and will defend the lawsuit.
In court papers, Chris Hogan alleges an article by West Valley City Mayor Mike Winder falsely claimed he was accused of extortion and fired from UTOPIA, a fiber-optic network formed by 16 Utah cities.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City seeks a trial, compensation for lost wages and punitive damages.
Among the lawsuit's 14 defendants is Deseret Digital Media, which published Winder's stories under the alias Richard Burwash.
The company's CEO Clark Gilbert has said company officials "deeply regret" the mayor misrepresented himself.
Winder promoted his city and even quoted himself in stories he wrote.
Winder said on Thursday he disputes Hogan's claims and will defend the lawsuit.
Court denies new trial in Wis. mill worker death
A Wisconsin appeals court on Thursday denied the request for a new trial made by a man convicted in the grisly 1992 killing of a Green Bay paper mill worker.
Rey Moore, 65, was one of six men convicted of killing their co-worker Tom Monfils. His body was found in a pulp vat at the then-James River Corp. plant in Green Bay with a weight tied around his neck.
Moore's attorney, Byron Lichstein, of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, argued that the conviction should be overturned because of questionable testimony by prison inmate James Gilliam.
He had testified in 1995 that Moore told him he participated in a group beating of Monfils at the mill. But Gilliam later recanted and said Moore told him he actually tried to prevent the beating.
That change in Gilliam's testimony was not allowed at the trial. Lichstein argued that Moore deserved a new trial because that testimony would exonerate him.
Rey Moore, 65, was one of six men convicted of killing their co-worker Tom Monfils. His body was found in a pulp vat at the then-James River Corp. plant in Green Bay with a weight tied around his neck.
Moore's attorney, Byron Lichstein, of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, argued that the conviction should be overturned because of questionable testimony by prison inmate James Gilliam.
He had testified in 1995 that Moore told him he participated in a group beating of Monfils at the mill. But Gilliam later recanted and said Moore told him he actually tried to prevent the beating.
That change in Gilliam's testimony was not allowed at the trial. Lichstein argued that Moore deserved a new trial because that testimony would exonerate him.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)