|
|
|
Shareholder class action hits Leighton
Legal Business |
2011/09/01 09:47
|
Shareholders set to take legal action against Leighton over alleged failures to properly report a $907 million turnaround in financial performance.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn on Thursday said it intended to launch a class action against the company, alleging Leighton breached continuous disclosure obligations as set out in the Corporations Act.
On April 11 this year, the Leighton announced it was expecting to post a loss of $427 million for the 2010/11 financial year, a turnaround from a $480 million profit in 2009/10.
The announcement came after a review of its operations, which led to a $282 million drop in profit from its desalination plant project at Wonthaggi in Victoria, a before-tax loss of $430 million on the Brisbane Airport Link and a $295 million write-down on its equity in the Middle East-focused Habtoor Leighton Group.
Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson said Leighton should have told the market about those write-downs by November 2, 2010, or, at the very latest, February 14 this year.
'Shareholders expect a company like Leighton to have proper risk management and internal reporting systems to ensure timely announcements are made when there are difficulties,' Mr Watson said.
Maurice Blackburn says it believes Leighton was seeking approval for design changes on the Brisbane Airport Link because of expected delays as early as April 2009.
Leighton also advised the market that construction of the Victorian desalination plant was on time at least five times between November 2010 and March 2011, Maurice Blackburn alleges.
In response to a query from the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) several days after its announcement of the losses, Leighton said it informed the market of its expected losses as soon as it was aware of them.
'At all times, the company has been mindful of its continuous disclosure obligations,' Leighton secretary Ashley Moir said on April 18.
Last week, the Leightonboard terminated the contract of chief executive David Stewart, who took over from long-time chief executive Wal King in January.
That followed chairman David Mortimer's decision to depart the Leighton board a day earlier. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 law firms in Louisiana and Mississippi to merge
Network News |
2011/08/31 08:46
|
A New Orleans-based law firm is expanding into Mississippi as it merges with a firm based in Jackson.
The New Orleans firm is Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere amp; Denegre L.L.P.
It is combining with Watkins Ludlam Winter amp; Stennis, P.A., a firm that includes former Mississippi Gov. William Winter.
The firms say in a news release Tuesday that the merger should be complete by Jan. 1, and the combined firm will have 375 attorneys.
It will go by the current name of the New Orleans firm, Jones Walker.
After the merger is complete, Jones Walker will have 15 offices in Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and the District of Columbia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Court Cannot Exclude Evidence Because It Is Self-Serving
Network News |
2011/08/31 08:46
|
In Reed v. City of Evansville, _ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 82A05-1012-PL-768, Evansville sought to have some of the evidence the Reeds submitted in opposition to the City's motion for summary judgment because it was self-serving. Today, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that parties should not make this same objection in the future.
The Reeds filed a claim against Evansville and Evansville moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notice was not timely under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted that motion and the Reeds appealed.
On appeal, the Court held that the trial court erred when granting summary judgment to the City, because there were genuine issues of material fact. The court then addressed the City's cross-appeal, which challenged the trial court's denial of the City's motion to strike some of the Reeds' evidence. The City moved to strike some of that evidence because it was self-serving. The Court had none of it.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/A-Court-Cannot-Exclude-Evidence-Because-It-Is-Self-Serving |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder Class Action Filed Against WebMD Health Corp.
Headline Court News |
2011/08/30 09:33
|
The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer amp; Check, LLP:
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WebMD Health Corp., who purchased or otherwise acquired WebMD securities between February 23, 2011 and July 15, 2011, inclusive (the Class Period).nbsp; If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the Complaint or join this class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.
Members of the class may, not later than October 3, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.nbsp; A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.nbsp; In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.nbsp; Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.nbsp; Any member of the purported 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. nbsp;
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 Kessler Topaz Meltzer amp; Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.nbsp; For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the class action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
