Author Archive: Brian Sanchez

Judge was wildly unfamiliar not just with sexual assault law, but with criminal law …

CALGARY — The sexual assault case that saw then-Alberta Provincial Court Judge Robin Camp land in the soup was one hot mess — a classic of the he-said-she-said variety, with the additional complication of a witness who said the alleged victim told her she was going to have sex with the alleged attacker moments before the alleged assault.

And 474 pages of transcripts of the entire trial, released Wednesday by the Canadian Judicial Council panel now reviewing Camp’s conduct, as well as testimony from the “mentor” who has since helped the judge in his purported re-education, show that Camp was wildly unfamiliar not just with the law on sexual assault, but with the criminal law itself.

The 64-year-old Camp, who was appointed to the provincial bench in 2012 and then elevated to the Federal Court of Canada in June of last year, had only ever practised criminal law for a short time after he opened his practice in his native South Africa.

Thereafter, and certainly after he immigrated to Canada in 1998, he was a civil litigator, with a specialty in contractual, trust, oil and gas law.

Yet when he was named to the bench, it was as a judge in the criminal division.

The criminal courts are the rough-and-tumble sector of the law, very different from the rather more genteel corporate and commercial sides. But litigators from both big corporate and small boutique law firms are routinely appointed to the bench across the country. Camp is hardly alone, either in having little criminal law experience or in being expected to quickly master the nuances of a criminal trial.

In fact, his hired mentor, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Judge Deborah McCawley, testified Wednesday that she “had no criminal law experience” when she was named to the Queen’s Bench, where about 75 per cent of her work until recently “was criminal law.”

Unlike Camp, however, McCawley was a federally appointed judge, which meant she could, and did, avail herself of “top-notch education programs” run by the National Judicial Institute (NJI).

Provincial court judges don’t have the same access or, she said, “the federal funding that allows us to attend” intensive seminars and workshops run by the NJI.

Camp, according to an agreed statement of facts now in evidence at the CJC hearing, received no training “on the law of sexual assault or how to conduct sexual assault trials,” which are particularly tricky because of prohibitions on a complainant’s previous sexual experience and on how what’s called post-incident conduct may or may not be used.

Probabilities very often don’t absolutely align with facts because human nature is infinite. But you have to deal with probabilities all the time

As the transcripts of the 2014 trial show, Camp was practically begging the prosecutor, Hyatt Mograbee, for guidance on how he could or should use the testimony he’d heard, and for specific case law.

“And the fact that she’s affectionate afterwards,” Camp asked Mograbee, “does that undermine her credibility?”

“Not in the Crown’s respectful submission,” Mograbee said. “You’re now getting into thinking about ways that you would expect a person to act after they’ve been sexually assaulted. And that can be a dangerous …

“Because,” she continued, “there isn’t a (single) way that people are expected to act …”

“Geez,” Camp replied, “well, that’s what probabilities are. Probabilities very often don’t absolutely align with facts because human nature is infinite. But you have to deal with probabilities all the time.”

It was one of those two independent witnesses, a then-22-year-old woman whose identity is protected, who testified that she, the alleged victim, Wagar and another young man went into the bathroom to smoke a joint and that she directly asked the girl, in front “like of everybody” if “she was going to have sexual relations with Alex, and she admitted she was going to.”

Prosecutor Mograbee suggested in cross-examination that the young woman was a friend of Wagar’s and “had his back,” the inference that she was protecting her friend.

But given that reasonable doubt must benefit an accused person — the legal equivalent of the tie going to the runner in baseball — it’s clear that the trial was more complex than reported, and that it’s possible that Camp’s ultimate decision to acquit Wagar, if not the language he used in doing it, may have been legally correct.

It’s that language — most infamously, when Camp asked the alleged victim why she didn’t “sink your bottom” into the bathroom sink so Wagar “couldn’t penetrate you?” or “keep your knees together” — and the stereotypical beliefs it suggested he may have, which are at the heart of the inquiry here.

Yet the transcripts suggest the judge was struggling to understand how an assault could have occurred without the co-operation of the alleged victim.

McCawley testified that despite her initial abhorrence at what he said at the trial, Camp was neither a misogynist nor a racist, but rather “extremely fair-minded.” She said that during their initial meetings, she struggled to “reconcile the transcripts with the person in front of me.”

She said he was extremely remorseful not only for his remarks to the alleged victim, but also for the damage done to the bench, “an institution I think he loves.”

McCawley is an expert in what’s called “social context education,” whereby judges are asked to challenge themselves for “unconscious bias.” It’s a process that must be continuous, McCawley said, admitting that when she first met Camp, then “a 63-year-old white South African male, I found myself guilty of the stereotypical thinking that I have spent a lifetime railing against.”

• Email: cblatchford@postmedia.com | Twitter:




Go to Source

Employment Law: Solutions for a Canadian Workplace – Research and Markets

DUBLIN–()–Research and Markets has announced the addition of the “Employment
Law: Solutions for a Canadian Workplace”
newsletter to their
offering.

Authored by one of Canada’s most prestigious national law firms,
Employment Law: Solutions for the Canadian Workplace is the most
comprehensive reference available for Canadian employment issues.
Covering federal and provincial standards (including Quebec), this guide
provides useful information on both the legal and practical aspects of
the hiring process, managing the employment relationship, withdrawal
from the employment relationship, remedies, defending a wrongful
dismissal claim and more.

Used by Lawyers/Attorneys, Managing Partners, Human Resource Managers,
Personnel Managers, VP Human Resources/operations, anyone whose duties
include supervision of employees or workplace management in private
organizations, crown corporations and public institutions, hospitals and
other health care facilities, colleges, universities, educational
authorities, governments and government agencies.

Benefits

– Reviews and compares employment standards in various provinces

– Provides an overview of the Canada Labour Code, outlining laws that
regulate workplaces across the country, organized by topic and division
so that readers can easily locate and review applicable laws

– Discusses the practical implications of laws and court decisions and
helps users understand how decisions were reached in precedent-setting
cases

– Is used as either a general guide to Canadian employment law and to
answer frequently asked questions

– Assists in complying with regulations

– Is the only guide on the market that is regularly updated

Topic Areas

– Bankruptcy of the employer

– Condonation

– Considerations on discipline or promotion of employees

– Constructive dismissal

– Damages for wrongful dismissal

– Defending a wrongful dismissal claim

– Frustration of contract

– General contract principles and common-law considerations

– Injunctive remedies

– Jurisdiction and sources of law

– Just cause for withdrawal from the employment relationship

– Mental distress and aggravated/punitive damages

– Other relationships defined in employment law

– Performance reviews and evaluations

– Policy manuals, procedures, and workplace rules

– Privacy in the workplace

– Probation

– Remedial considerations in handling a termination

– Resignation

– Restrictive covenants: non-competition, non-solicitation, and
confidentiality covenants or agreements

– Retirement

– Rights and obligations of employers and employees

– Sale of employer’s business

– Statutory definitions and implications

– The employee’s duty to mitigate

– The employment contract

– The selection process

– Tort liability

For more information about this newsletter visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/rdn9ln/employment_law

Related Topics: Employment
Law

Go to Source

Bombay HC to hear PIL on delay in state law admissions on Sept 14

MUMBAI: Expressing concern at the fate of students aspiring to join a law course in Maharashtra, under the state CET, a bench of the Bombay high court headed by Chief Justice Manjula Chellur, posted a challenge raised by a group of students against the inordinate delay in admissions, for a hearing on September 14.

The Universities supported the cause of the students. A group of law students from SNDT Women’s University in the city had last week filed a public interest litigation (PIL) against the delay in admissions to the first year for academic year 2016-17. The PIL filed against the Bar Council of India is for the inordinate delay which they say is encroaching on their right to education. The recent debarring of over 60 law colleges by the Bar Council across the state is what the students are worried about and they have questioned the powers of the BCI in its “abrupt action” and “highhandedness”.

The PIL filed through advocates Kamaljeet Singh and I A Saiyed draws the attention of the court to the fact that admissions to the first year of bachelors degree in law in colleges across the state have yet to take place and as a consequence students have been “denied the right to education for no lawful excuse.”

“The Authorities which have stopped admissions to the first year of Law Degree Course have exercised power which are not vested in them and even if they did have powers they have acted abruptly, and grossly abused such powers.” “The Welfare-State of Maharashtra and Universities runningLaw Colleges in Maharashtra are surprisingly silent and unconcerned with the denial of right of education to citizens of India residing in the State of Maharashtra,” said the students. The main plea is for directions to all law colleges to start admissions immediately.

The PIL has alleged that the “BCI has caused severe bureaucratic red-tapism and unreasonable delay in Maharashtra which would put immense pressure not only on students but also on teachers and the non-teaching staff.” The minimum required period of 90 days for teaching per semester would not be possible without taking away the vacation for teachers and students now.

The reason for the delay, the students were told when they enquired is that the colleges had not deposited “lakhs of rupees for college inspection, a mandatory payment even if there has been not inspection of the individual college.” The PIL says the BCI is charging inspection fee for no inspection. The other reason cited was that when inspection was done, it was found that some law colleges did not adequate staff and hence the approval for such colleges has been cancelled.

Most law colleges have an examination in October and if by September too admissions haven’t been granted, the cascading effect would adversely impact students who “may later join the judiciary or other firms with hardly any knowledge of basic fundamental laws.” Instead of delegating powers to the state bar council the BCI is arrogating the powers to itself and sends its members to Mumbai from Delhi and distant places -incurring great cost which is passed on to colleges, and ultimately to students in the form of fees, the PIL is at pains to point out.

Meanwhile, the fate of nearly 30,000 students seeking admission to undergraduate law courses still hangs in balance.

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Goldcorp Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – GG

NEW YORK, Sept. 09, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldcorp Inc. (“Goldcorp” or the “Company”) (NYSE:GG) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-06436, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Goldcorp securities between March 31, 2014 and August 24, 2016 both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).  This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased Goldcorp securities during the Class Period, you have until October 24, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Goldcorp engages in the acquisition, exploration, development, and operation of precious metal properties in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Central and South America. The Company primarily explores for gold, silver, lead, zinc, and copper.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) levels of the mineral selenium rose in one groundwater monitoring well near the Peñasquito Mine as early as October 2013; (2) in October 2014, Goldcorp reported a rise in selenium levels in groundwater to the Mexican government after the contamination near the Peñasquito Mine waste facility intensified; (3) in August 2016, Goldcorp told Mexican regulators that contaminated water had also been found in other areas near the Peñasquito Mine; and (4) as a result, Goldcorp’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 24, 2016, Reuters reported that Mexican regulators are investigating whether Goldcorp broke any regulations in its handling of a contaminated water leak at Mexico’s biggest goldmine, previously undisclosed to the investing public by the Company. 

On this news, Goldcorp stock fell $1.64, or 9.27%, to close at $16.05 on August 24, 2016.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

/EIN News/ —

CONTACT:
                    Robert S. Willoughby
                    Pomerantz LLP
                    rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Power Solutions International, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – PSIX

NEW YORK, Sept. 09, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Power Solutions International, Inc. (“PSI” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:PSIX) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and docketed under 16-cv-08253, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired PSI securities between May 8, 2015 and August 15, 2016 both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).  This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased PSI securities during the Class Period, you have until October 21, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

PSI designs, manufactures, distributes, and supports power systems and custom engineered integrated electrical power generation systems for industrial original equipment manufacturers of off-highway industrial equipment and on-road medium trucks and buses.  The Company sells its products and services primarily in North America, as well as in the Pacific Rim and Europe.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company inappropriately recognized revenue for certain transactions; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, PSI’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 

On August 15, 2016, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release and filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), announcing that the Company needed additional time to file its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 with the SEC. 

On this news, PSI’s share price fell $1.52 per share, or 9.85%, to close at $13.91 on August 16, 2016.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

Robert S. Willoughby
                    Pomerantz LLP
                    rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

/EIN News/ —


Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Quorum Health Corporation and Certain Officers – QHC

NEW YORK, Sept. 09, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Quorum Health Corporation (“Quorum” or the “Company”) (NYSE:QHC) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Quorum securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to Quorum’s false and misleading Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company’s spinoff from Community Health Systems, Inc. (“CHS”) effective on or about April 29, 2016; and/or (2) on the open market between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Quorum securities during the Class Period, you have until November 8, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Quorum is an independent operator and manager of general acute-care hospitals and outpatient services in the United States, with facilities in 16 states.  Quorum was spun off from CHS effective April 29, 2016.  Under the terms of the spin-off, CHS stockholders who held CHS common stock as of April 22, 2016, the record date, received a distribution of one share of Quorum common stock for every four shares of CHS common stock, plus cash in lieu of any fractional shares. CHS’s stockholders owned all of the outstanding common stock of Quorum upon completion of the spinoff.   

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a number of Quorum’s hospitals were underperforming at the time of the spin-off from CHS; (ii) various other indicators of impairment existed at the time of Quorum’s spin-off from CHS; (iii) Quorum disregarded and/or failed to advise investors of the foregoing issues; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Quorum’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 

On August 10, 2016, Quorum issued a press release and filed a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC announcing the Company’s financial and operating results for the three months ended June 30, 2016 (the “Q2 2016 10-Q”).  In the press release and Q2 2016 10-Q, Quorum reported a substantial net loss and an operating loss for the quarter.  Defendants blamed the large operating loss on the $250.4 million in impairment charges Quorum had taken in the quarter, including $45.4 million to reduce certain long-lived asset values in property, equipment and software; $5 million in goodwill based on management’s decision to divest certain hospitals; and $200 million related to the carryover allocation of goodwill at the time of the spin-off from CHS.

On this news, Quorum’s share price fell $4.99, or 49.8%, to close at $5.03 on August 11, 2016.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in AECOM of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – ACM

NEW YORK, Sept. 9, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AECOM (“AECOM” or the “Company”) (NYSE: ACM) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-06605, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AECOM securities between February 11, 2015 and August 15, 2016 both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased AECOM securities during the Class Period, you have until October 31, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

AECOM together with its subsidiaries, engages in designing, building, financing, and operating infrastructure assets worldwide. The Company operates through three segments: Design and Consulting Services (DCS), Construction Services (CS), and Management Services (MS). The DCS segment provides planning, consulting, architectural and engineering design, program management, and construction management services for industrial, commercial, institutional, and government clients, such as transportation, facilities, environmental, and energy/power markets. The CS segment offers building construction and energy, as well as infrastructure and industrial construction services. The MS segment provides program and facilities management and maintenance, training, logistics, consulting, technical assistance, and systems integration and information technology services primarily for agencies of the U.S. government and other national governments.

On October 17, 2014, AECOM announced that the Company had finalized its acquisition of URS Corp. (“URS” and the “URS Acquisition”).

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AECOM engaged in fraudulent and deceptive business practices (ii) AECOM lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; (iii) AECOM overstated the benefits of the URS Acquisition; (iv) AECOM overstated the Company’s free cash flow per share; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, AECOM’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 16, 2016, Spruce Point Capital Management published a report on AECOM (the “Spruce Point Report”), stating that “after a careful forensic financial and accounting analysis of AECOM’s recent financial results and condition, we believe that AECOM’s stock is worth approximately 33% – 45% less than its current price.” Among other issues, the Spruce Point Report cited AECOM management’s “misaligned incentive structure,” pursuant to which the Company’s “CEO’s $18 million compensation in 2015 [was] heavily tied to its aggressive interpretation of its Free Cash Flow per share,” and asserted that the Company had misrepresented the costs and benefits of the URS Acquisition.

On this news, AECOM stock fell $1.65, or 4.7%, to close at $33.44 on August 16, 2016, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-aecom-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline–acm-300325754.html

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Concordia International Corp. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – CXRX

NEW YORK, Sept. 09, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Concordia International Corp. (“Concordia” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:CXRX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-06749, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Concordia securities between November 12, 2015 and August 12, 2016 inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased Concordia securities during the Class Period, you have until October 14, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Concordia is a specialty pharmaceutical company that purportedly owns a portfolio of branded and generic prescription products which are sold to wholesalers, hospitals and pharmacies in over 100 countries.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was experiencing a substantial increase in market competition against the Company’s drug, Donnatal, and other products; (ii) consequently, the Company’s financial results would suffer and the Company would be forced to suspend its dividend; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Concordia’s business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 12, 2016, Concordia issued a press release announcing that it was lowering its 2016 guidance “to reflect the impact of unexpected competition on several products in our North America segment, and current foreign currency exchange rates.” The Company also announced that Adrian de Saldanha, Concordia’s Chief Financial Officer, was leaving the Company, and that Concordia’s Board unanimously agreed to suspend the Company’s $0.075 quarterly dividend.

On this news, Concordia’ stock price fell $6.33 per share, or 38%, to close at $10.03 per share on August 12, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
                    Robert S. Willoughby
                    Pomerantz LLP
                    rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

/EIN News/ —


Go to Source

Premier ERISA Law Firm Extends its Leadership With the Addition of Bruce J. McNeil

BOSTON, Sep 08, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) —

Marcia Wagner, the Managing Director of The Wagner Law Group, widely recognized as the country’s top ERISA and employee benefits law firm, is pleased to announce that Bruce J. McNeil, a preeminent ERISA and employee benefits attorney, has joined the firm as a partner, effective as of September 6, 2016. “Bruce’s breadth of knowledge and depth of experience in ERISA and employee benefits law further strengthens our firm’s position as an exceptional institution in that area of practice,” says Ms. Wagner.

Mr. McNeil is considered one of the country’s foremost experts in the area of nonqualified deferred compensation and has testified as an expert before the United States Senate Committee on Finance on executive compensation matters.  He is the author of over 28 books, including 17 editions of “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans,” “Tax-Sheltered Annuities Under 403(b) and Nonqualified 457 Plans,” and “Employee Benefits in Mergers & Acquisitions,”  and he is the author or co-author of over 80 articles on employee benefit issues.  Mr. McNeil is a Fellow of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and is the Editor-in-Chief of both the Journal of Pension Planning & Compliance and the Journal of Deferred Compensation.  A member of the Bar in multiple jurisdictions, Mr. McNeil is also admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Tax Court as well as several Courts of Appeal and District Courts.  He has been an adjunct professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School and is formerly a shareholder with the law firm of Littler Mendelson P.C. in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and served with the Employee Plans Technical and Actuarial Division of the Internal Revenue Service in Washington, D.C.   Mr. McNeil received a BA from Concordia College, a JD from Drake University Law School, an LLM from Georgetown University Law Center, and an MA in English from Georgetown University.  “I am thrilled to be joining the country’s most extraordinary team of ERISA and employee benefits attorneys,” says Mr. McNeil.

The Wagner Law Group:
The Wagner Law Group, now proudly celebrating its 20 [th] anniversary, has been dedicated to the highest standards of integrity, excellence and thought leadership and is considered to be the nation’s most exceptional ERISA and employee benefits law firms.  The firm has five offices, providing unparalleled legal advice to its clients, including large, small and nonprofit corporations as well as individuals and government entities, in over 45 states and several foreign countries. The Wagner Law Group’s 25 attorneys combine many years of experience in their specialty fields of practice with a variety of backgrounds. Five of the attorneys are AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell as having very high to preeminent legal abilities and ethical standards. Four attorneys have been named to the prestigious Super Lawyers list for 2016, which highlight outstanding lawyers based on a rigorous selection process.

 FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Ari J. Sonneberg asonneberg@wagnerlawgroup.com (617) 357-5200 

Copyright (C) 2016 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.



















Go to Source

Premier ERISA Law Firm Extends its Leadership With the Addition of Bruce J. McNeil

BOSTON, Sept. 08, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Marcia Wagner, the Managing Director of The Wagner Law Group, widely recognized as the country’s top ERISA and employee benefits law firm, is pleased to announce that Bruce J. McNeil, a preeminent ERISA and employee benefits attorney, has joined the firm as a partner, effective as of September 6, 2016. “Bruce’s breadth of knowledge and depth of experience in ERISA and employee benefits law further strengthens our firm’s position as an exceptional institution in that area of practice,” says Ms. Wagner.

/EIN News/ — Mr. McNeil is considered one of the country’s foremost experts in the area of nonqualified deferred compensation and has testified as an expert before the United States Senate Committee on Finance on executive compensation matters.  He is the author of over 28 books, including 17 editions of “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans,” “Tax-Sheltered Annuities Under § 403(b) and Nonqualified § 457 Plans,” and “Employee Benefits in Mergers & Acquisitions,”  and he is the author or co-author of over 80 articles on employee benefit issues.  Mr. McNeil is a Fellow of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and is the Editor-in-Chief of both the Journal of Pension Planning & Compliance and the Journal of Deferred Compensation.  A member of the Bar in multiple jurisdictions, Mr. McNeil is also admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Tax Court as well as several Courts of Appeal and District Courts.  He has been an adjunct professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School and is formerly a shareholder with the law firm of Littler Mendelson P.C. in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and served with the Employee Plans Technical and Actuarial Division of the Internal Revenue Service in Washington, D.C.   Mr. McNeil received a BA from Concordia College, a JD from Drake University Law School, an LLM from Georgetown University Law Center, and an MA in English from Georgetown University.  “I am thrilled to be joining the country’s most extraordinary team of ERISA and employee benefits attorneys,” says Mr. McNeil.

The Wagner Law Group:
The Wagner Law Group, now proudly celebrating its 20th anniversary, has been dedicated to the highest standards of integrity, excellence and thought leadership and is considered to be the nation’s most exceptional ERISA and employee benefits law firms.  The firm has five offices, providing unparalleled legal advice to its clients, including large, small and nonprofit corporations as well as individuals and government entities, in over 45 states and several foreign countries. The Wagner Law Group’s 25 attorneys combine many years of experience in their specialty fields of practice with a variety of backgrounds. Five of the attorneys are AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell as having very high to preeminent legal abilities and ethical standards. Four attorneys have been named to the prestigious Super Lawyers list for 2016, which highlight outstanding lawyers based on a rigorous selection process.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
                    Ari J. Sonneberg
                    asonneberg@wagnerlawgroup.com
                    (617) 357-5200

Primary Logo

Go to Source