|
|
|
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason LLP Announce Notice of Class Action
Industry News |
2011/06/20 08:22
|
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of SRAM in violation of antitrust, unfair competition and unjust enrichment laws, resulting in overcharges to customers who indirectly purchased SRAM. Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. The court has not decided who is right. Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and Defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (the Settling Defendants) have agreed to settle with Plaintiffs; they continue to deny liability, but settled to avoid litigation expense and risk.
Who's Included?
You are a member of the Settlement Class and could get benefits if you indirectly purchased SRAM from one of the Defendants in the United States during the period November 1, 1996 through December 31, 2006. SRAM is a memory part or module that is sold by itself or as a part in electronic devices.
What Does the Settlement Provide?
The Settling Defendants have agreed to pay a total of $15,900,000. Copies of the Settlement Agreements are available at the website below. In 2010, the Court approved settlements with other defendants that total $25,422,000 (the 2010 Settlements); those settlements are now final and binding on the Settlement Class.
How Will the Money Be Distributed?
The total Settlement Fund from all settlements is $41,322,000. The Settlement Class includes indirect purchasers of SRAM that resold Defendants' SRAM (Resellers), as well as indirect purchasers of Defendants' SRAM that purchased it for their own use and not for resale (End Users). The Net Settlement Fund (the Settlement Fund minus court-approved costs, attorneys' fees and incentive awards), will be distributed as follows: (1) 36.7% of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to qualified Resellers through a court-approved claims process; and (2) 63.3% of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed via a court-approved cy pres plan to non-profit charities for the benefit of End Users. The cy pres portion of the distribution plan is due to the high cost of processing claims and making direct cash distributions to many thousands of potential claimants relative to the average likely award to those claimants. Under the cy pres plan of distribution, payments will not be made to individual class members; instead, that portion of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to court-approved non-profit charities. Go to the website below to see the distribution plan details or the proposed list of non-profit charities. Unclaimed funds from the Reseller claims process, if any, will be added to the cy pres distribution. Class Counsel will request attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the Settlement Fund, reimbursement of their costs and expenses, and incentive payments for the court-appointed class representatives. The attorneys' fees application shall be filed by August 1, 2011, and will be posted on the case website.
Who Represents You?
The Court has appointed Zelle Hofmann Voelbel amp; Mason LLP as Class Counsel. You do not have to pay these lawyers to represent you. You may hire your own attorney, if you wish; however, you will be responsible for your own attorney's fees and expenses.
What Are Your Options?
If you do not want to be a part of the Settlement Class or legally bound by the Samsung and Cypress settlements, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. You may not exclude yourself from the 2010 Settlements. To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must do so in writing, postmarked no later than August 25, 2011.
The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing for October 6, 2011 and will consider whether to approve the proposed settlements, distribution plan and requests for attorneys' fees, costs and incentive payments. This date may change without further notice. Any new hearing date or time will be posted on the website below.
You may object to or comment on any part of the proposed settlement. Your objection/comment must be filed with the Court by August 25, 2011. You may also request in writing to speak at the Final Approval Hearing.
If you are a Reseller and want to make a claim, or for more information, you may 1) write to SRAM Indirect Litigation, P.O. Box 8090, San Rafael, CA 94912, 2) call the toll free phone number 1-866-252-7551, or 3) visit the website www.indirectsramcase.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class-action lawsuit has been filed against infrastructure products
Network News |
2011/06/20 08:17
|
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against infrastructure products maker Armtec Infrastructure Inc. alleging the company broke securities laws when it instituted a dividend, later to cancel it after it became unsupportable by earnings.
The suit filed in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of investors who bought shares between March 30 and June 8 alleges that Armtec should have known when it raised capital in the public market that it did not have sufficient earnings to pay dividends.
Through this class action, we hope to determine precisely what the defendants knew about Armtec's financial results when Armtec raised more than $50 million from investors, lawyer Jay Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP said in a statement.
Armtec shares plummeted earlier this month after the Ontario-based announced a widening of its first-quarter loss and the planned suspension of the 40 cent per share dividend. The dropped 22 cents or six per cent to $3.43 in early trading Friday on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Class action lawsuits must be certified by a judge in order to proceed. None of the allegations against Armtec have been proven in court.
In a statement issued late Friday, Armtec said it was confident that there are no grounds for a lawsuit to succeed.
If, however, this suit proceeds, Armtec will defend it vigorously based on, amongst other things, Armtec's disclosure of the risk factors associated with its business and to the payment of a dividend.
The Guelph-based company, which makes construction materials such as precast concrete and tubing, said business was hurt by an unusually late and wet spring across the country during the quarter and ended up with a payout significantly in excess of free cash flow.
The company said it had to meet certain terms in its credit facilities and meet earnings tests on senior notes to be permitted to pay dividends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chandler steps down as head of Del. Chancery Court
Headline Topics |
2011/06/20 04:22
|
William Chandler III never realized his young man's dream of becoming a university professor, yet he has managed to pass on plenty of lessons to students of American law and business.
Chandler, 60, is retiring this week as head of Delaware's Court of Chancery, which rules over corporate law in a state that is the legal home to more than half of all publicly traded U.S. companies, including about two-thirds of the Fortune 500.
Chandler's decision to join a Silicon Valley-based law firm, where he will focus on advising corporate clients and working behind the scenes on litigation strategy, comes after 26 years on the bench, including eight years as a vice chancellor on the five-member court and 14 as chancellor.
But Chandler, who also served as a Superior Court judge before being appointed a vice chancellor, never envisioned himself wearing a black robe.
After obtaining his law degree from the University of South Carolina and clerking for a federal judge in Wilmington, Chandler went to Yale University law school with his eye on a master's degree and a dream of becoming a professor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court limits Wal-Mart sex bias case
Legal Business |
2011/06/20 04:22
|
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of women who work there.
The court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages.
Now, the handful of women who brought the lawsuit may pursue their claims on their own, with much less money at stake and less pressure on Wal-Mart to settle.
The justices divided 5-4 on another aspect of the ruling that could make it much harder to mount similar class-action discrimination lawsuits against large employers.
Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the court's conservative majority said there needs to be common elements tying together literally millions of employment decisions at once.
But Scalia said that in the lawsuit against the nation's largest private employer, That is entirely absent here.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court's four liberal justices, said there was more than enough uniting the claims. Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores, Ginsburg said.
Business interests lined up with Wal-Mart while civil rights, women's and consumer groups have sided with the women plaintiffs. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
