Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Groupon, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the allegedly false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Groupon’s November 4, 2011 initial public offering, including purchasers of Groupon common stock between February 8, 2012 and March 30, 2012.
Groupon operates an e-commerce marketplace that connects merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a discount in North America and internationally. The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company materially understated refund reserves for fourth quarter 2011 due to a failure to properly account for coupon refunds; (b) as a result, the Company materially misstated its previously reported fourth-quarter and full-year 2011 financial results; and (c), the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Groupon common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company’s November 4, 2011 initial public offering, and/or during the Class Period described above, you have certain rights, and have until June 4, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member.
www.glancylaw.com
Lawyers for Belgium urged the United Nations' highest court Monday to order Senegal to prosecute former Chad dictator Hissene Habre or extradite him for trial for allegedly masterminding atrocities during his brutal eight-year rule.
Habre has lived in a luxury villa in Senegal's capital, Dakar, since rebels ousted him 1990 and has become a symbol of Africa's inability to try leaders from the continent accused of rights abuses.
The case at the International Court of Justice is about "taking a stand against impunity in the most serious crimes in international law," Belgian representative Paul Rietjens told judges in the wood-paneled Great Hall of Justice.
Belgium indicted Habre in 2005 for crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture based on complaints by survivors of his regime, some of whom have Belgian citizenship, but has failed to persuade Senegal to extradite him to Brussels despite repeated requests.
A federal judge blocked police in Arizona from enforcing a section of the state's 2010 immigration enforcement law that prohibited people from blocking traffic when they seek or offer day labor services on streets.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled Wednesday that groups seeking to overturn the law will likely prevail in their claim that the day labor rules violate the First Amendment. She rejected arguments by the state that the rules were needed for traffic safety and pointed out that the law, also known as SB1070, says its purpose is to make attrition through enforcement the immigration policy of state and local government agencies.
"This purposes clause applies to all sections of SB1070, and nowhere does it state that a purpose of the statutes and statutory revisions is to enhance traffic safety," the judge wrote.
The ban was among a handful of provisions in the law that were allowed to take effect after a July 2010 decision by Bolton halted enforcement of other, more controversial elements of the law. The previously blocked portions include a requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, question people's immigration status if officers suspect they are in the country illegally.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Gov. Jan Brewer's appeal of Bolton's decision to put the most contentious elements of the law on hold. Another appeals court has already upheld Bolton's July 2010 ruling.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some circumstances.
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative?-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
MJM Law Office, P.C. represents men and women throughout Lane County and surrounding areas in family law cases. Mr. Mizejewski understands the emotional turmoil that can accompany a change in your family dynamics, and he strives to protect your interests. Working in the Eugene, Oregon area, MJM Law Office represents most family law matters including: divorce, child custody, parenting time, child/spousal support, domestic violence, and juvenile dependency and delinquency. Oregon’s divorce laws are codified in Chapter 107 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. Oregon is a no-fault divorce state, which means that the only legal reason required to file a divorce is that you and your spouse cannot get along, and you see no way of settling your problems. The legal term for this is "irreconcilable differences." No evidence of fault or misconduct is required or involved, unless there has been misconduct relating to child custody.
MJM Law Office is an experienced family law firm located in Eugene, Oregon and consistently fight hard for the rights of the victims of family matters and cases. Their attorneys are able to ease one of the most emotionally draining and difficult experiences and ensure that your rights are protected. Let them help you prepare for the future and move on with your life. Visit mjmlawoffice.com for more information.
