Cisco Systems (NASDAQ:CSCO) has had a class action lawsuit filed against them by Izard Nobel LLP, claiming it made "false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results."
Press Release Source: Izard Nobel LLP
WEST HARTFORD, CT--(Marketwire - 04/01/11) - The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CSCO) between May 12, 2010 and February 9, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint charges Cisco and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that: (i) Cisco was facing intense pricing pressure for its products from its more traditional competitors and emerging Chinese competitors; (ii) in order to maintain market share and meet its previously announced growth rate targets in the face of the intense pricing pressure being exerted by the Company's competitors, Cisco was forced to dramatically lower prices, which was having a material adverse effect on the Company's margins; and (iii) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Cisco's growth rates, market share, orders, new product introductions and gross and operating margins.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 30, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.
While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/cisco/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com.
Contact:
CONTACT:Nancy A. Kulesa or Wayne Boulton(800)797-5499www.izardnobel.comEmail Contact
Showing posts with label Class Action Lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Class Action Lawsuit. Show all posts
Monday, April 4, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Exxon Mobil (XOM), Conocophillips (COP), Tesoro Corp. (TSO) Sued Over Alleged Credit Card Violations
Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM), Conocophillips (NYSE:COP) and Tesoro Corp. (NYSE:TSO) are among a number of oil companies being sued over claims they violated credit rules when customers got gas at their stations.
Specific allegations are the companies recorded and transferred the zip codes of customers in California, according to Schwartz Law PC firm.
Claimants are seeking class action status and are suing for billions.
Specific allegations are the companies recorded and transferred the zip codes of customers in California, according to Schwartz Law PC firm.
Claimants are seeking class action status and are suing for billions.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Coinstar (Nasdaq:CSTR) Has Two Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against It
After disappointing quarterly results, Coinstar (Nasdaq:CSTR) has had two class action lawsuits filed against them, both alleging the company failed to disclose its real performance during the class period, violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, one of those filing a class action, said this:
"The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Coinstar and certain of its officers and executives. During the Class Period, Coinstar failed to disclose that customers were buying fewer DVDs per purchase; poor inventory management and controls resulted in the Company removing material amounts of old inventory early in 4Q; lower sales of more expensive "Blue-ray" DVDs and poor title selection was resulting in lower overall sales; the 28-day delay movie studios imposed on Coinstar was adversely affecting sales; and competition from online video streaming providers such as Netflix was having a significant adverse impact on revenue."
The other class suit filed by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, said essentially the same thing. They noted that "...officers and directors are charged with issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."
Shares of Coinstar have plunged after the release of their last quarterly results showing them underperforming by a surprisingly wide margin.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, one of those filing a class action, said this:
"The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Coinstar and certain of its officers and executives. During the Class Period, Coinstar failed to disclose that customers were buying fewer DVDs per purchase; poor inventory management and controls resulted in the Company removing material amounts of old inventory early in 4Q; lower sales of more expensive "Blue-ray" DVDs and poor title selection was resulting in lower overall sales; the 28-day delay movie studios imposed on Coinstar was adversely affecting sales; and competition from online video streaming providers such as Netflix was having a significant adverse impact on revenue."
The other class suit filed by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, said essentially the same thing. They noted that "...officers and directors are charged with issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."
Shares of Coinstar have plunged after the release of their last quarterly results showing them underperforming by a surprisingly wide margin.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) Sued Over Faulty Lending Practices
The lawsuits keep on coming for the giant banks, and the latest has been filed against Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) by the benefit plan of a local union, alleging faulty lending practices led to a drop in the share price of the company.
According to the lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, Bank of America didn't have enough workers to process the large amount of foreclosures it had to deal with. The suit also alleges the bank hid billions of dollars in debt it had incurred.
The benefit plan of the local union acquired about 25,000 shares of Bank of America in 2010 at $19 each, and after announcing they were being investigated, the giant bank's share price plunged to as low as 69 cents a share.
At the time BofA had to postpone the pending foreclosures during the process.
The suit hopes to represent all investors who purchased stock from the bank from January through October 2010.
Bank of America was trading at $14.22, down $0.21, or 1.46 percent, as of 11:53 AM EST.
According to the lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, Bank of America didn't have enough workers to process the large amount of foreclosures it had to deal with. The suit also alleges the bank hid billions of dollars in debt it had incurred.
The benefit plan of the local union acquired about 25,000 shares of Bank of America in 2010 at $19 each, and after announcing they were being investigated, the giant bank's share price plunged to as low as 69 cents a share.
At the time BofA had to postpone the pending foreclosures during the process.
The suit hopes to represent all investors who purchased stock from the bank from January through October 2010.
Bank of America was trading at $14.22, down $0.21, or 1.46 percent, as of 11:53 AM EST.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) Sued in Another Class Action
Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) has been sued in a class action suit, claiming the giant bank made false and misleading statements regarding mortgages and in preparation of paperwork for foreclosures.
The press release announcing the lawsuit is below.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit Against Bank of America Corporation
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) (http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/bofacorp/) today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Bank of America Corporation (“BofA”) (NYSE:BAC) common stock during the period between January 20, 2010 and October 19, 2010 (the “Class Period”).
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/bofacorp/. 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 BofA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BofA is a bank holding company and a financial holding company.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business. Defendants concealed defects in the recording of mortgages and improprieties with respect to the preparation of foreclosure paperwork that harmed BofA’s investors when BofA had to temporarily discontinue foreclosures and admit to the problems it was experiencing. For much of the Class Period, defendants also concealed that BofA had previously engaged in a practice known as “dollar rolling,” wherein it omitted billions of dollars in debt from its balance sheet reported to the public. As a result of defendants’ false statements, BofA’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $19.48 per share on April 15, 2010.
Beginning in May 2010, BofA began disclosing aspects of its “repo-to-maturity” transactions (dollar rolling), claiming the transactions did not have a material impact on BofA’s balance sheet. Later, in October 2010, BofA announced a nationwide foreclosure halt pending a review of its foreclosure processes and whether there were irregularities with respect to its previously completed foreclosure activities. Then, on October 19, 2010, BofA announced its third quarter 2010 financial results, reporting a net loss of $7.3 billion and a diluted earnings per share loss of $0.77. BofA further reported receiving $18 billion in claims about faulty home loans that it may have to repurchase. On this news, BofA stock dropped $0.54 per share, to close at $11.80 per share on October 19, 2010 – a one-day decline of 5% and a nearly 42% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) BofA did not have adequate personnel to process the huge numbers of foreclosed loans in its portfolio; (b) BofA had not properly recorded many of its mortgages when originated or acquired, which would severely complicate the foreclosure process if it became necessary; (c) defendants failed to maintain proper internal controls related to processing of foreclosures; (d) BofA’s failure to properly process both mortgages and foreclosures would impair the ability of BofA to dispose of bad loans; and (e) BofA had engaged in a practice known internally as “dollar rolling” to remove billions of dollars of debt from its balance sheet over the prior years.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of BofA 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.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
The press release announcing the lawsuit is below.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit Against Bank of America Corporation
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) (http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/bofacorp/) today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Bank of America Corporation (“BofA”) (NYSE:BAC) common stock during the period between January 20, 2010 and October 19, 2010 (the “Class Period”).
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/bofacorp/. 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 BofA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BofA is a bank holding company and a financial holding company.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business. Defendants concealed defects in the recording of mortgages and improprieties with respect to the preparation of foreclosure paperwork that harmed BofA’s investors when BofA had to temporarily discontinue foreclosures and admit to the problems it was experiencing. For much of the Class Period, defendants also concealed that BofA had previously engaged in a practice known as “dollar rolling,” wherein it omitted billions of dollars in debt from its balance sheet reported to the public. As a result of defendants’ false statements, BofA’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $19.48 per share on April 15, 2010.
Beginning in May 2010, BofA began disclosing aspects of its “repo-to-maturity” transactions (dollar rolling), claiming the transactions did not have a material impact on BofA’s balance sheet. Later, in October 2010, BofA announced a nationwide foreclosure halt pending a review of its foreclosure processes and whether there were irregularities with respect to its previously completed foreclosure activities. Then, on October 19, 2010, BofA announced its third quarter 2010 financial results, reporting a net loss of $7.3 billion and a diluted earnings per share loss of $0.77. BofA further reported receiving $18 billion in claims about faulty home loans that it may have to repurchase. On this news, BofA stock dropped $0.54 per share, to close at $11.80 per share on October 19, 2010 – a one-day decline of 5% and a nearly 42% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) BofA did not have adequate personnel to process the huge numbers of foreclosed loans in its portfolio; (b) BofA had not properly recorded many of its mortgages when originated or acquired, which would severely complicate the foreclosure process if it became necessary; (c) defendants failed to maintain proper internal controls related to processing of foreclosures; (d) BofA’s failure to properly process both mortgages and foreclosures would impair the ability of BofA to dispose of bad loans; and (e) BofA had engaged in a practice known internally as “dollar rolling” to remove billions of dollars of debt from its balance sheet over the prior years.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of BofA 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.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
RINO International (NASDAQ:RINO) Seems to be Hiding Something
Not long after writing the headline above, it has become clear why RINO (NASDAQ:RINO) has been acting coy and avoiding conference calls lately, as it has been discovered a class action lawsuit has been filed against them in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers the securities of RINO.
Canaccord noticed the same thing, as far as the company seemingly hiding something, saying this:
"We continue to recommend selling the stock. The conference call originally scheduled last night was cancelled. RINO’s press release said that in consultation with the company’s chairman of the audit committee, it had decided to postpone the conference call, without specifying a scheduled date. This, in our view, may suggest that something indeed is wrong, and therefore, we continue to recommend investors SELL; our target price remains Under Review."
A press release said this:
"The complaint alleges that RINO and certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Specifically, it alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning RINO’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading.
"A research report released on November 10, 2010, questioning RINO’s customer business relationships, the accuracy of its financial reporting and financial results. Further, on November 15, 2010, the Company announced that earnings for the third quarter will be less than half of the earnings for the same period last year, and quarterly revenue fell approximately 17% from the same period one year ago. RINO has also reduced its revenue outlook for the year. The Company’s shares have declined approximately 57% from October 27, 2010."
RINO plummeted Wednesday, closing at $6.07, falling $1.08, or 15.10 percent.
Canaccord noticed the same thing, as far as the company seemingly hiding something, saying this:
"We continue to recommend selling the stock. The conference call originally scheduled last night was cancelled. RINO’s press release said that in consultation with the company’s chairman of the audit committee, it had decided to postpone the conference call, without specifying a scheduled date. This, in our view, may suggest that something indeed is wrong, and therefore, we continue to recommend investors SELL; our target price remains Under Review."
A press release said this:
"The complaint alleges that RINO and certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Specifically, it alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning RINO’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading.
"A research report released on November 10, 2010, questioning RINO’s customer business relationships, the accuracy of its financial reporting and financial results. Further, on November 15, 2010, the Company announced that earnings for the third quarter will be less than half of the earnings for the same period last year, and quarterly revenue fell approximately 17% from the same period one year ago. RINO has also reduced its revenue outlook for the year. The Company’s shares have declined approximately 57% from October 27, 2010."
RINO plummeted Wednesday, closing at $6.07, falling $1.08, or 15.10 percent.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Transocean (NYSE:RIG) Has Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Them
Owner of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig involved with the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill, Transocean (NYSE:RIG), had a class action lawsuit filed against them by Scott+Scott LLP, which includes their former CEO and the former CEO of GlobalSantaFe Corporation, which they merged with.
Their press release stated:
"The complaint in this action alleges that, on October 2, 2007, in advance of a planned shareholder vote regarding the proposed merger of Transocean and GlobalSantaFe, Defendants disseminated a proxy statement to the Class that contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements that were made not misleading in violation of §14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, Transocean is
alleged to have misrepresented the quality of its drilling fleet and its safety practices. In fact, as was first revealed by the Deepwater Horizon disaster and its aftermath, Transocean was dramatically underinvesting in safety and exposing itself to a high risk of a catastrophic event. The false proxy induced the Class to approve the merger with Transocean for inadequate consideration, thereby harming the Class."
The lawsuit was filed against Transocean on September 30, 2010.
Their press release stated:
"The complaint in this action alleges that, on October 2, 2007, in advance of a planned shareholder vote regarding the proposed merger of Transocean and GlobalSantaFe, Defendants disseminated a proxy statement to the Class that contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements that were made not misleading in violation of §14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, Transocean is
alleged to have misrepresented the quality of its drilling fleet and its safety practices. In fact, as was first revealed by the Deepwater Horizon disaster and its aftermath, Transocean was dramatically underinvesting in safety and exposing itself to a high risk of a catastrophic event. The false proxy induced the Class to approve the merger with Transocean for inadequate consideration, thereby harming the Class."
The lawsuit was filed against Transocean on September 30, 2010.
Friday, August 6, 2010
10 Billion Class Action Lawsuit Against BP (NYSE:BP), Thousands Joining
There are thousands of people in Galveston, TX. who have signed up to be part of a class action lawsuit against BP (NYSE:BP). They are afraid that they have been exposed and will suffer long term effects caused by a benzene leak at a BP facility.
In papers filed in court, the lawsuit alleges the release of over 500,000 pounds of chemicals, 17,000 pounds of which was benzene. It's being said the chemicals have harmed property values in the area as well as putting the health of citizens at risk.
This incident happened April 6th, when the company was having problems with a hydrogen compressor in their Texas City plant. There was a fire which compromised the seal of the compressor which made BP have to burn off the gases. The company worked to fix the problem over the following 40 day, there was 583,000 pounds of toxic chemicals released into the air.
In papers filed in court, the lawsuit alleges the release of over 500,000 pounds of chemicals, 17,000 pounds of which was benzene. It's being said the chemicals have harmed property values in the area as well as putting the health of citizens at risk.
This incident happened April 6th, when the company was having problems with a hydrogen compressor in their Texas City plant. There was a fire which compromised the seal of the compressor which made BP have to burn off the gases. The company worked to fix the problem over the following 40 day, there was 583,000 pounds of toxic chemicals released into the air.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP): State Pension Funds Ask for Lead-Plaintiff Status in Class-Action Lawsuit
Government fund of Ohio and New York are seeking to be named lead plaintiffs by a Louisiana court in a class-action lawsuit against BP (NYSE:BP).
Court papers filed by Ohio Attorney General Richard A. Cordray and New York Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli show the two pension funds combined lost $229.4 million by investing in BP and the resultant fallout from the Gulf oil spill.
The complaint states BP and its directors and officers are responsible for the pension fund losses, and should pay for it.
According to the filing, BP "made false and misleading statements regarding BP’s safety protocols, operations, and safety record, as well as its ability to respond to a major oil spill.”
So far over 300 lawsuits have been filed against BP in relation to the Gulf oil spill.
Court papers filed by Ohio Attorney General Richard A. Cordray and New York Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli show the two pension funds combined lost $229.4 million by investing in BP and the resultant fallout from the Gulf oil spill.
The complaint states BP and its directors and officers are responsible for the pension fund losses, and should pay for it.
According to the filing, BP "made false and misleading statements regarding BP’s safety protocols, operations, and safety record, as well as its ability to respond to a major oil spill.”
So far over 300 lawsuits have been filed against BP in relation to the Gulf oil spill.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Class Action Lawsuit: Class Action Attorney
One of New Orleans highly regarded and prominent chefs Susan Spicer, is suing BP (NYSE:BP) claiming that restaurants in the area have seen a decline in seafood supplies due to the negligence of the Gulf oil spill. She runs a restaurant called Bayone in the French Quarter of New Orleans.
The class action lawsuit is on behalf of all restaurants in the seafood industry that have experienced losses and damage caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon Rig on April 20th. The 18 page complaint was filed in Federal Court on Friday.
Serena Pollace, Spicer's lawyer said that due to the oil spill they are expecting to lose customers because of contamination fears, higher prices, lower tourism, and the lack of availability of local seafood. " Much of the plaintiffs business is based on the unique quality of Louisiana seafood as well as the chain of delivery of that resource from the initial harvester. Because this chain of delivery cannot be maintained, plaintiffs business has been and continues to be, materially damaged," said Pollace.
The lawsuit also names as defendants, Transocean who operated the rig, Cameron who provided the blowout preventer, and Halliburton that provided the cementing services. The lawsuit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from BP.
The class action lawsuit is on behalf of all restaurants in the seafood industry that have experienced losses and damage caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon Rig on April 20th. The 18 page complaint was filed in Federal Court on Friday.
Serena Pollace, Spicer's lawyer said that due to the oil spill they are expecting to lose customers because of contamination fears, higher prices, lower tourism, and the lack of availability of local seafood. " Much of the plaintiffs business is based on the unique quality of Louisiana seafood as well as the chain of delivery of that resource from the initial harvester. Because this chain of delivery cannot be maintained, plaintiffs business has been and continues to be, materially damaged," said Pollace.
The lawsuit also names as defendants, Transocean who operated the rig, Cameron who provided the blowout preventer, and Halliburton that provided the cementing services. The lawsuit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from BP.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Another BP (NYSE:BP) Class Action Lawsuit
Another shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against BP (NYSE:BP), this time you could include the song title "We are the World," to describe how it differentiates from other recently-filed lawsuits against the oil company.
Lawyers looking everywhere for BP blood to sue, got creative and are including everyone around the world who holds shares in BP.
About 61 percent of all shareholders of BP reside outside the United States, the reason for going this route by New York's Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling.
According to the complaint filed, "Defendants were aware that BP's operations in the Gulf were inadequate and unsafe with respect to the risks associated with those operations, particularly with respect to an oil spill and its consequences."
Among the defendants named are BP CEO Tony Hayward, Chairman of the board Carl-Henrie Svanberg, and CFO Byron Grote.
Lawyers looking everywhere for BP blood to sue, got creative and are including everyone around the world who holds shares in BP.
About 61 percent of all shareholders of BP reside outside the United States, the reason for going this route by New York's Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling.
According to the complaint filed, "Defendants were aware that BP's operations in the Gulf were inadequate and unsafe with respect to the risks associated with those operations, particularly with respect to an oil spill and its consequences."
Among the defendants named are BP CEO Tony Hayward, Chairman of the board Carl-Henrie Svanberg, and CFO Byron Grote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)