Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
CEMI:
SURE CHECK receives EU approval:
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=58040288
Thanks.
AE:
Nice $4 move up today. Any reason why that you know of? When would you think about selling. TIA
UVE:
Looks like fodder for a class action. Could make the fine seem like chump change if a good plaintiffs' firm decides to take it on.
Looks to me like this Q will be another major disappointment. Is this thing headed to$.50?
Given volume, looks like Q may be disappointing.
Why auspicious?
Don't know if they have "inked a deal." But I think the large order to a Fortune 100 company referenced in the conference call is U.S. Steel.
My guess is that U.S. Steel is the Fortune 100 company mentioned in the conference call.
This is the best thing I heard in the CC.
My guess is that JB did not even set a date for the call until he was pretty confident that the successful installation of ##2 and 3 could be announced by the time of the call. The picture of the new processors suggests that he will be ready to make that announcement on 2/27, if not before. I have to believe that he understands the expectations generated at this time in the company's history by the announcement of a conference call. He needs to be able to report on concrete developments, not just a general assertion that construction is progressing. Could be wrong, but that is my guess.
What has happened to the Swing Trade Member Forum Board? Thanks.
Huh?
Absolutely.
This lawsuit has been brought by lawyers. You need to ask why they are pursuing the case. The identity of the plaintiff and his/her motivation is irrelevant.
I am aware of Paula's posts and agree with much of what she has said. But a class action can be brought and a class certified with only 1 named plaintiff. It happens all the time. While class actions almost never proceed to trial, 1 named plaintiff -- certified to represent all those "similarly situated" -- is all it takes.
This case has nothing to do with the named plaintiffs and everything to do with the plaintiff lawyers. Those plaintiff lawyers you see on the existing complaint have probably reached a deal between themselves. Others are hoping/trying to deal themselves in.
This is all an "automatic" reaction to the Wells Notice -- none of these attorneys has done a whole lot of studying. It is simply assumed that the Wells Notice gives legitimacy to the claim, and now various plaintiff's attorneys are looking for the "best" class representative and the right to represent that person as lead counsel.
The numerosity requirement refers to the number of people who could potentially be in the class. It is not related to what is going on now.
Right now, plaintiffs' law firms are trolling for lead plaintiffs to get the upper hand in the litigation (i.e., to be appointed lead counsel). To certify a class, you do not need to show that large numbers of potential class memnbers actually support the lawsuit.
Only one plaintiff is required. At some point the plaintiff will seek to certify a class. If a class is certified, putative class members will have an opportunity to opt out. If they don't opt out, they will be included in the class. Occasionally, as part of the certification process, the order will provide that one must opt in in order to be included in the class (an "opt in" class), but that is rare.
Frequently, a class is "certified" for settlement purposes only. The settlement will include a release of the company and its officers and directors, and the company's goal then is to have as large/broad a class as possible. Except for such a "settlement class," the goal is obviously to defeat class certification.
It is very likely that the case will settle for an award of fees. The "clients" are not paying anything and not being billed.
IMO, this is correct. Only 1 lawsuit. "Investigations" by class action plaintiff's firms is a euphenism for "client(s) wanted."
Is there more than 1 lawsuit? All these announcements are by plaintiff law firms trolling for plaintiffs, I think. There is a window of time within which lead plaintiff status can be sought by someone other than the plaintiff named in the suit. But I am aware of only one pending lawsuit.
In addition, now advertising for full time driver.
http://jobview.monster.com/Driver-Job-Niagara-Falls-NY-US-101314982.aspx
The Wells Notice will trigger class action litigation, even if the litigation is only exploratory. The litigation is almost inevitable.
These are attorney lawsuits, not real ones. That doesn't mean the litigation won't be around for a while, or even that it is completely without merit, but it is driven by the desire of the plaintiffs' class action bar to make money.
I suspect that the PR may be delayed, while the parties work out the language. From the Agreement:
"10.1 Public Notices
The Parties shall jointly plan and co-ordinate any public notices, press releases, and any other publicity concerning the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and no Party shall act in this regard without the prior approval of the other, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, unless such disclosure is required to meet timely disclosure obligations of any Party under applicable Laws or stock exchange rules in circumstances where prior consultation with the other Party is not practicable and a copy of such disclosure is provided to the other Party."
This may explain why a deal was inked on 7/29, but there was no 8K until 8/4.
Perhaps your experience defending securities class actions has been different than mine . . . hope you are right . . . but I doubt that the outcome of a Rule 12 motion will turn on the identity of the lead plaintiff.
It seems to me that the case turns on what the company knew when. Maybe you know the answer to that. I know that I do not. But for Rule 12 purposes it is assumed that the allegations of the complaint are true, and without having done any research, I am guessing that the allegations here are sufficient (or can be amended to be sufficient).
I do know from personal experience that the Glancy, Binkow firm is capable and experienced.
Time will tell.
The pleading war won't turn on the identity of the plaintiff.
I think it will be difficult to defeat the case at the pleading stage, but I hope that I am wrong. I would need to review the 9th Circuit cases since Tellabs (Supreme Court opinion on pleading scienter in PSLRA cases). My guess is that the Glancy Binkow firm knows this law quite well, and would not have started down this road if it did not think it could survive the pleading stage.
My guess is that there is only one lawsuit on file right now -- the one by the Glancy, Binkow firm, and those on the complaint with them (O'Mara, Smith). I think the other firms are trolling for plaintiffs. "Lead plaintiff" status is usually accorded to the person/group with the most shares, and "lead counsel" status will be accorded to the attorneys representing the lead plaintiff(s). If another shareholder surfaces, represented by other counsel, the fight is on.
I have my doubts that the case can be beat at the pleading stage, as the "scienter" requirement is fact intensive. But I would love to be wrong.
I hope that the company has insurance, if not for itself, at least for the individuals, so that insurance money can absorb the lion's share of the cost of defense.
The amount recovered is not divided equally. It is divided pro-rata according to share ownership, after fees and costs are netted out.
Looks like we are there. Where do we go from here? Thanks
A lot of things were different 50 years ago, including the practice of law. For openers, attorneys were not routinely sued every time shareholders were disappointed in how a deal/transaction played out. But you are right. In the old days, the business terms of major reinsurance treaties were written out on the back of cocktail napkins, and a handshake supplied the boiler plate. Today, the contracts run in the hundreds of pages.
A deal with a large waste company to build multiple processors at one or more sites would be a very complicated agreement, even if the major "business terms" (i.e., $$$) had been agreed upon. And the lawyers don't have anything in their form files from which to cut and paste; this is uncharted territory for them as well.
What "hype" are you talking about?
SSKILLZ1:
Not allowed to double down into the wild card (non-earnings) stock, correct? Thanks.
1 million shares today? Seems likely . . .
Amen. I have them all on ignore, and have for months.
Coco Paving:
http://www.cocopaving.com/
Closed at $3.95 on 5/9/11, I think.
Interesting: "new milestones and partnerships."
Awesome. Been waiting for this call. Time to put more money to work here.