Pennsylvania Attorney Lawyer

The law firm Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announced that investment firms-Class Action Lawsuit began in the USA District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of ‘purchaser of the common Biopure Corporation ( “Biopure” or the “Company”) between 17 As at 24 March 2003 in December 2003 (the “Class Period”). The complaint was filed against Biopure, Thomas A. Moore, Carl W. noise and Ronald F. Richards.

The complaint alleges that the defendants against federal laws on securities issuance clearly false and misleading statements in press releases and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the class on the state of progress of its application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( “FDA”), admission on the market Hemopure (R) in the USA for patients in orthopaedic surgery. In truth, however, the FDA announced, accused of irregularities in the Hemopure (R) application, citations from “security concerns” that lie on the negative effects of clinical data presented in the business of request. The security concerns “made FDA approval of Hemopure (R) highly unlikely. Previously, disclosure of these facts, the accused at least two offers of shares and Biopure insiders sold hundreds of thousands of Biopure shares at prices artificially.

On 24 December 2003, published defendant, that the FDA had ceased to other clinical studies with Hemopure (R) because of security problems. Defendant also revealed that the commercial release of Hemopure (R) the USA would be delayed beyond mid-2004. On 26 December 2003, the share price collapsed by Biopure, 16%, to close at $ 2.43 per share.

If you purchased securities Biopure class during the period, you may, not later than 1 March 2004, to be appointed as the principal applicant in this category. A Lead plaintiff a representative elected by the Court, that acts on behalf of other class members in the direction of the judicial process is excluded. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, courts to assume that members of class (es) with the “largest financial interest in the outcome of the case best serve the class in this property. The courts are discretion in determining the class member (s) have the largest financial interests “and determined leader requiring considerable losses on both absolute and percentage of their assets to society.

PHILADELPHIA - The law firm Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announced that investment firms-Class Action Lawsuit began in the USA District Court for the District of Utah, on behalf of the purchaser of the common Nature’s Sunshine Products, Inc. ( “NSPI) (Pink Sheets: NATR) between May 13, 2002 to March 24, 2006, inclusive (the” Class Period “).The complaint alleges that the defendants against federal laws on securities issuance clearly false and misleading statements in press releases and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period. More precisely, it is stated that: (a) the defendant knew or neglect lightly essential to have information about the company and financial results that take business and (b) the financial situation was clearly misstated statements on the What NSPI is not properly account for foreign transactions. Accordingly, the accused “perjury, NSPI part acted at prices artificially during the class and reached a record high of $ 23.34 per share on 30 September 2005.

On 20 March 2006, the company announced that its annual public filed for each quarter from 2002 to 2005, should not rely on the basis of a preliminary report of its audit committee and an independent consultant, certain internal control weaknesses “and” potential violations of the law. “As a result of this disclosure, NSPI share fell to $ 14.33 per share. On 24 March 2006, following the announcement of company it would have an indication of non-compliance with the NASDAQ because of non-compliance of your file Form 10-K, at regular intervals, the price of its share fell to 11.68 dollars per share. Five days later, the March 29, 2003, the company’s President and CEO of resignation and 5 April 2006, NSPI announced that it had been dekotiert the NASDAQ. On 26 April 2006, the company closed at $ 10.95 per share action.

The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announces that a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation ( “Bally “Or the” Company “) between August 3, 1999 through April 28, 2004, inclusive (the” Class Period “).The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period which described the Company’s increasing financial performance. These statements failed to disclose and / or misrepresented the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company had violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( “GAAP”) and its own internal policies by prematurely recognizing revenue on certain non-obligatory prepaid membership dues ( ii) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company, and (iii) that, as a result, the value of the Company’s reported revenues during the Class Period was materially overstated.

On April 28, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing that its Chief Financial Officer and Director, John W. Dwyer, had resigned and that the Division of Enforcement of the SEC had commenced an investigation in connection with the Company’s announced restatement regarding the timing of recognition of certain prepaid dues. The Company also stated that it had modified its existing internal controls structure, which it believes is now effective. In response to these disclosures, shares of the Company’s stock fell 17%, to close at $ 4.50 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

If you purchased Bally securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than July 26, 2004, move to be appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in this class action. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative, chosen by the Court, that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 directs Courts to assume that the class member (s) with the “largest financial interest” in the outcome of the case will best serve the class in this capacity. Courts have discretion in determining which class member (s) have the “largest financial interest,” and have appointed Lead Plaintiffs with substantial losses in both absolute terms and as a percentage of their net worth.

The law firm Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announced that a class action was the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the defendant Adaptive Broadband Corporation (Nasdaq: ADAP) ( “adaptive” or the “Company”) on behalf of the buyers acquired Adaptive securities during the period from 11 August 2000 to March 15, 2001 (the “Class Period”).The complaint charges Adaptive and certain of its officers and directors in with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Adaptive provides wireless terrestrial and satellite-based systems to support the Ultra-High-speed Internet access, digital TV, broadcasting and transport global Internet backbones. The company also offers solutions for data transmission via satellite and terrestrial wireless networks telemetry.

On 15 March 2001, Adaptive announced that it reaffirms its financial Q4 2000 because of accounting errors in a press release in part: “Adaptive Broadband Corporation announced today that it expects its new revenue to revenue and expense for the quarter ended June 30, 2000. The Company believes that its current revenue and cost of revenue for the quarter was $ 4.0 million in connection with a sales area of transaction during the quarter, the company now believes it is not recognized. After this restatement, revenues for the quarter were $ 13.1 million. The Company does not expect that the reprocessing of influence on gross margin or net loss from continuing operations. As already announced, on December 31, 2000, the company increased its allowance for doubtful debts to reflect the condition of some customers over several outlets, including those requires adaptation. The company also said that its new management team is working with the company’s Board of Directors, accountants and external consultants to determine if other comparable transactions, there are the same, or d ‘ Other billing periods and, if so, what measures, if ever, it should perhaps be taken with respect to them. The company hopes that, to the extent of this provision to March 30, 2001. Based on this review, it is the company that may be necessary, so that the practices of financial reporting for all past and future

Time, in all respects with the accounting standards in force. “Of these messages, Adaptive share prices fell as low as $ 1.47 per share, representing over 95% of his class period maximum of $ 33125th

The law firm Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announced that investment firms-Class Action Lawsuit began in the USA District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of the purchaser of the common Wireless Facilities, Inc. ( “Wireless” or the “Company”) between the 26. April 2000 to 4 August 2004, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Included in the class are these people, Wireless shares acquired through its acquisitions of the complaint, Davis Bay, Defense Systems, High-Technology Solutions, Telia Academy and Telia Contracting.The complaint alleges that the defendants against federal laws on securities issuance clearly false and misleading statements in press releases and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period. In particular, the complaint alleges that Wireless, an independent supplier subcontracting of communication and security for the area of wireless communications, and some of its officers and directors in much misinformation on the financial situation. It further affirms that the wireless network is not disclosed and poorly presented following essential elements: (1), Wireless were many reported their sub-emergence of foreign tax and fiscal pressure, (2), is that many of the foregoing, the excesses of its wireless Net income of 3% to 8% or $ 10-12 million, and (3) Wireless that lacked internal controls and was therefore not able to ascertain their true financial condition.

On 4 August 2004, Wireless reported results for the second quarter of fiscal 2004. He also announced that it intends to their financial results files on Form 10-K for the years 2001 to 2003, are for certain foreign taxpayers unforeseen events. Of these messages, shares of Wireless collapsed to $ 5.02 per share, representing a decrease of nearly 28%.

If you purchased securities wireless class during the period, no later than October 4, 2004, to be appointed as the principal applicant in this category. A Lead plaintiff a representative elected by the Court, that acts on behalf of other class members in the direction of the judicial process is excluded. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, courts to assume that members of class (es) with the “largest financial interest in the outcome of the case best serve the class in this property. The courts are discretion in determining the class member (s) have the largest financial interests “and determined leader requiring considerable losses on both absolute and percentage of their assets to society.

The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announces that a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of UTStarcom, Inc.. ( “UTStarcom” or the “Company”) between April 16, 2003 through September 20, 2004, inclusive (the “Class Period”).The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period concerning the Company’s financial results and operations. Specifically, the Complaint charges that defendants grossly inflated the Company’s projections for the fiscal years 2004 and 2005, thereby causing UTStarcom’s shares to trade at artificially inflated levels. However, defendants concealed from the investing public that UTStarcom had massive supply chain constraints delaying legitimate revenue recognition, its prime margins were eroding in China, and its Japanese-related revenue projections were overstated by $ 290 million. Defendants also concealed that the Company lacked internal control over its ability to analyze revenue recognizing criteria and was in violation of Nasdaq rules requiring that the Board of Directors have a majority which is independent.

On September 16, 2004, UTStarcom stated in a SEC filing that a Company-initiated review of a deal with Japan Telecom “led management to conclude that certain significant control deficiencies exist related to the review and evaluation of criteria related to revenue recognition, including process deficiencies with respect to obtaining evidence of delivery “and that” certain inventory transactions recorded in the quarter ended June 30, 2004 were in error. ” News of significant problems with the Company’s internal controls caused UTStarcom shares to drop 5.86% the next day, September 17, 2004. On September 20, 2004, UTStarcom announced that it was revising downward its financial guidance for third-quarter and full-year 2004. News that the entire $ 290 million in revenue from the Japan Telecom deal was not eligible for recognition in 2004 caused UTStarcom shares to drop $ 1.50, or 9.86%, in one day on very heavy volume, to close at $ 13.70 on September 20, 2004.

A new American Lung Association report on state tobacco laws permitted so far during the year 2004 shows a lack of legislative implementation important in tobacco control. However, the strong momentum for an air smokeless tobacco national laws seems to be continued.The economic outlook seems to improve for most countries, which is in operation less than cigarette taxes in recent years in which households was umreiften legislators and provided new sources of income. Two states, Alabama and Virginia, have their cigarette since 1 January tax to 17.5 cents and 26 cents. An increase of 35 cents in Pennsylvania was adopted in December 2003 and entered into force in January 2004. From this July 1, state taxes are on average 74.0 cents per pack. Alaska, Michigan, Oklahoma and Texas are also seriously if taxes increased.

“The increase in cigarette taxes are win-win-win for policy decisions. The benefits are enormous. Increased taxes to keep children from smoking, motivate adults to quit future of the base on health care costs increase and new sources of income are the Fund can help Tobacco prevention programs, ” said John L. Kirkwood, President and CEO of the American Lung Association.

“Cigarette local taxes have also helped to make significant reductions in tax rates of smoking,” he said.

A recent survey by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene showed a reduction of 11 percent adult smokers in New York to live, and a reduction of 13 per cent of consumption. This corresponds to less than 100000 smokers, and less than 30000 deaths attributable to smoking. Cook County, IL, including Chicago, has increased its cigarette tax by 18 cents to $ 1.00 per pack in April 2004, 82 cents.

Improving the economy has been largely spared tobacco prevention programs in the new reductions, but unfortunately there was no movement to restore funding lost by the previous cuts or increased financial resources considerable. Only a handful of countries “GJ 2005 households approach the minimum level of resources for tobacco prevention and control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Now, five months in 2004, the strong impetus for national legislation smokeless tobacco air seems to continue. Idaho a considerable extent to strengthen their legislation air smokeless tobacco, and in particular the strengthening of local regulations. However, the action includes stand-alone bars and businesses employing fewer than five people. Massachusetts and Rhode Island seems to give some signs of pass laws complete with air smokeless tobacco.

The law firm Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announced that a class action was the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the defendant Actrade Financial Technologies, Ltd. ( “Actrade” or the “Company” ), Amos Aharoni, Alexander Stonkus, Joseph S. D ‘Alessandria and David J. Askin Andris on behalf of the buyer of shares acquired, Actrade (NASDAQ: ACRT) securities during the period of 11 at 11 March 1999 February 2002 (the “Class Period”).The complaint charges the defendants violated Article 10, subsection (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 y announcement in a number of fake products and misleading information on market between March 11, 1999 and February 11, 2002.

Throughout the class period, issued press releases Actrade announces record results for the quarter and description of their activities on trade, finance and Business-to-business financing solutions.

In addition, the company’s fiscal 2000 and 2001 annual reports with the SEC on Form 10-K405, represented that their credits were covered by insurance and guarantees that reduces business risk on loans.

The representations in press releases and reports were received, according to allegations in the complaint objectively false and misleading because the company had borrowed $ 10 million to individuals and not companies, the product used personally.

In addition, according to the complaint, are expected to be defendants failed to disclose their insurers and nature of the guarantees of personal loans and, therefore, the company was jeopardizing their ability to gather, in the framework of politics and security in the event of noncompliance.

The law firm Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announced that a Class Action Lawsuit began in the USA District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of common components to VONAGE Holdings Corporation ( “VONAGE” or the “Company”) (NYSE: GE), purchased or otherwise acquired shares under the VONAGE recyclable or company on May 24, 2006 Initial Public Offering ( “Class”).

The complaint alleges the company name and certain officers and Underwriter against the laws of the Confederation of securities by publishing an objectively false and misleading registration and joint proxy statement prospectus (the “prospectus”). The company offers broadband telephony services to the USA, Canada and the United Kingdom, the first line with Voice over Internet Protocol, technology. Before the company Initial Public Offering (IPO “or” Offering “), May 24, 2006, the company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the market services to their potential customers. However, the complaint alleges that the two companies and insiders have invested hundreds of millions of dollars of its resources in the enterprise, went their money. According to the application, that company insiders, desperate to pursue an exit strategy for himself, began a course of conduct illegal to sell company shares in a public market.

The complaint further alleges that the defendant, to realize that institutional investors usually buy IPO reluctant to buy at the best price VONAGE hand, Pre-sales of at least 13.5% of the company in stock exchange to customers in the company Violation of NASD Rule 2310. NASD Rule 2310 provides that a company recommending the purchase or sale of securities to its customers must have an adequate basis for adoption, that the recommendation is for the customer. The complaint also alleges defendant had not sufficiently secure this basis, in this case, full of false and VONAGE investors in the IPO, regardless of their fitness.

G. Judge Nicholas Byron, by decision of internal justice on February 8, 2001, certified a class action suit on behalf of a Cambridge strengths and Marlboro Lights cigarettes-smokers in the Third Judicial Circuit Court Madison County, Illinois. The appeal claims that Philip Morris in misleading conduct in the context of the promotion and sale of these so-called “light” cigarettes. The Court said that the main contention, he asserts that light cigarettes are, by nature, their design is not much lighter than normal cigarettes and that any person accused purchased light cigarettes do not get what the defendants are for sale, ie a “light” cigarettes contain significantly lower in tar and nicotine than cigarettes normal. “The complaint alleges that Philip Morris by deception of consumers, the packaging of cigarettes as “strong” and affirms that these cigarettes contain “tar and nicotine lower than normal cigarettes.” The complaint states that Philip Morris does not exceed certain essential information about their applications for low tar and nicotine content of their wages “light” cigarettes. In particular, the complaint states that Philip Morris did not disclose that the so-called low tar and nicotine content of their wages “light” cigarettes depends on the presence of additional ventilation holes in the filter cigarettes as the real content of cigarette tobacco. In theory, the holes can mingle in the air with cigarette smoke inhaled by the consumer and therefore the dilution of tar and nicotine content of tobacco smoke on the train. Defendant in tar and nicotine on the steps of the machinery industry smoking “to designate their ventilated cigarettes” light “. Since the complaint, said however that discharge holes on the filter and are practically invisible. Consequently, consumers - other than smoking, the machinery industry - the block holes to lighten her lips and fingers, more tar and nicotine than a machine. The complaint states that Philip Morris did not reveal that consumers may not reach the lower tar, nicotine or “light” cigarettes, if inadvertently blocked all or part of the discharge of holes with their fingers or lips.