Pennsylvania Attorney Lawyer

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 Netopia, Inc.. ( “Netopia” or the “Company”) between November 5, 2003 and August 16, 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. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants knew, but concealed from the investing public, the following material adverse facts: (a) the Company was experiencing weaker than claimed gross margins due to higher component costs (including shipping and surcharges); (b) the Company was actually experiencing decreases in average selling prices to its key carrier customers, (c) the Company’s receivables (and earnings) were overstated by virtue of the fact that the Company’s customers were not even capable of paying for prior shipments; (d) the Company’s largest customers were, early on, altering their purchasing mix, resulting in dramatically lower average selling prices (e) the Company’s European customers had changed delivery standards resulting in a pushing out of potential revenue into future quarters, and ( f) as a result of the above, the Company was not on track to achieve stated projections.

On July 22, 2004 it was disclosed that Netopia’s Audit Committee has initiated an inquiry into Netopia’s accounting and reporting practices, including the appropriateness and timing of revenue recognition of software license fees in two transactions with a single software reseller customer.

The law firm Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announced that a class action was the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against the accused Enron Corporation ( “Enron” or “Company”) (NYSE: ENE), Kenneth L. Lay, K. Jeffrey Skilling and Andrew Fastow, on behalf of the purchaser of shares of Enron in the period between 18 and 17 January 2000 October 2001, inclusive (the “Class Period”).The complaint alleges that the defendants against the § 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 y announcement in a number of misrepresentations of material on the market between 18 and January 17, 2000 October 2001, and thus artificially inflate artificially the price of shares of Enron. In particular, the complaint alleges that Enron, a number of statements about their activities, financial results and operations which are not the disclosure of (i) the company Broadband, the division has been a decline demand for bandwidth and the company in its efforts to create a market for trading bandwidth are not meeting with success, as most market participants are not solvable, (ii) that the company , Operating income was significantly overstated the company’s performance did not write down the value of their investments with some very limited partnerships were conducted by Chief Financial Officer, (iii) that Enron was not write descendants of assets allocated to a rapid basis, in accordance with GAAP. On 16 October 2001, Enron surprised the market by announcing that the company non-recurring expenses of $ 1.01 billion, after taxes, or ($ 1.11) diluted loss per share in the third quarter of 2001, the period until 30 September 2001. Enron, then, that a significant portion of costs associated with reducing investments with certain limited partnerships closely by Enron’s Chief Financial Officer and that the company would be the elimination of more than $ 1 billion in its equity Shareholder Reduction investments. As this message began to be assimilated by the market, the share prices of Enron has declined significantly. During the class insider Enron elimination of more than $ 73 million of its staff held Enron shares to investors naive.

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 Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. ( “By” or the “Company”) (NYSE: PRX) between April 29, 2004 through July 5, 2006, 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. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented the following adverse facts: (i) that Par was materially overstating its financial performance by failing to properly reserve for customer credits and uncollectible accounts. During the Class Period, Par overstated its income by at least $ 55 million, (ii) that was By failing to timely write-down the impaired value of inventory. During the Class Period, Par overstated the worth of its inventory by at least $ 15 million, and (iii) based on the foregoing, Par’s Class Period financial statements were materially false and misleading and not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP “).

The complaint further alleges that, on July 5, 2006, Par admitted that its previously issued financial results and financial statements materially overstated the Company’s financial performance and that the Company’s financial statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP. On that date, Par issued a press release announcing that it would be restating its financial statements for fiscal years 2004, 2005 and the first quarter of 2006 to correct for “an understatement of accounts receivable reserves which resulted primarily from delays in recognizing customer credits and uncollectible customer deductions. ” The Company reported that the effect of the restatement over reported periods will be $ 55 million, that the Company would also write down $ 15 million in inventory and that its prior financial statements “should not be relied upon.” In response to the announcement of the restatement, the price of Par stock dropped from $ 18.25 per share to $ 13.47 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC has filed a class action suit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of American Electric Power Company, Inc. ( “AEP” or the “Company”) betweenThe action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, located at Joseph P. Kinneary U.S. Courthouse, 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio 43215, against defendants AEP, E. Linn Draper, Jr. and Susan Tomasky.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between April 24, 2001 and October 9 , 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of AEP securities. Throughout the Class Period, as alleged in the complaint, AEP issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its increasing energy trading revenues and earnings. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Company failed to implement appropriate risk management procedures regarding information provided to trade publications, (ii) as a result of this failure to implement appropriate risk management procedures, the Company was manipulating price indices used throughout the industry, (iii) as a result of this manipulation, the Company gained revenue and profits that it could not maintain absent manipulation, (iv) without improper manipulation, the Company could not successfully maintain its energy trading business, and (v) as a result, the energy trading business was not the business opportunity that the Company presented throughout the Class Period.

The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announces that it filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ( “King Pharmaceuticals” or the “Company”) (NYSE: KG) betweenThe 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, including the Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Jones Pharma, Inc.. during the Class Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants issued statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and future prospects and the strong demand for its branded pharmaceutical products, notably Altace and Levoxyl. The Complaint further alleges that the Company failed to disclose: that certain of its rebate and pricing practices subjected it to heightened governmental scrutiny, that the Company had understated the level of generic competition for Levoxyl, and that the Company had engaged in questionable sales to VitaRx and Prison Health Services during 1999 and 2000.

On March 11, 2003, King Pharmaceuticals announced unexpectedly that it was the subject of an SEC investigation for its pricing and rebate practices. As a result of this announcement, the price of King Pharmaceuticals common stock declined to $ 12.17 per share from $ 15.90 per share.

The law firm Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC connected costume of a class action on behalf of an investor against Star Media Network, Inc. ( “Star Media” or the “Company”) and its main leaders and makers Scene the USA District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities, Star Media purchased during the storage period of 11 classThe 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 misrepresentations of material on the market between 11 November 2000 April 19, 2001 on the financial performance. The complaint alleges that Star Media reported artificially inflated financial results tabled in press releases and the SEC by incorrectly revenue of knowledge, the violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In particular, the complaint alleges that two firms in the first line of subsidiaries, SA de CV Adnet Star Media and Mexico, SA de CV, has been in abusive practices of accounting had the effect essential overstating Star Media’s reported figure Business and the result of growth of at least $ 10 million. On 19 November 2001, saying that in the complaint, Star Media in a press release announced that, on the basis of “provisional” results of an internal investigation into its accounting practices, expects that their new financial statements for the year 2000 and first two quarters of 2001 and that these accounts can not be invoked. The company further reported that Chief Financial Officer, had “resigned”. Immediately after the announcement of the restatement, the Nasdaq Stock Market Order of the Star Media trade in reserve until the receipt of information from the company. Star Media shares last traded at $ 0.38 per share, that 98.5% less than the class period high 25.50 dollars reached on.

The firm Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announced that a class action was the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the defendant InfoSpace, Inc. (Nasdaq: INSP) ( “Info Space” or “Company”) on behalf of the purchaser of the state Information on space during the period from 26 until 30 January 2000 January 2001, inclusive (the “Class Period”).The fee for spatial information and its founder and chairman, Naveen Jain, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that between January 2000 and January 2001 defendant disseminated false and misleading information on the reality Info Space GJ in 1999 and 2000 financial performance and the “expectation information GJ’s Space 2001 turnover and result . Indeed, neither the space Info’s reported 1999 and GJ GJ 2000 nor its results projections GJ 2001, said the performance. Defendants’ public performances were the result of efforts by the defendant to manipulate’s Space News reported wages and benefits provided GJ 2001 and were designed to ensure that (a) provide: (i) Jain to sell millions of dollars in the information space of its own shares at prices artificially, and (ii) the defendant, a number of acquisitions of shares by Info’s Space artificially inflated as a reserve currency, including the taking in October 2000 by Go2Net.

On 30 January 2001, after the defendant had overvalued several acquisitions of shares of spatial information as the single currency, defendant revealed that, contrary to the presentation of them during the year 2000, the information space has been a strong growth of sales in 4Q99 and GJ 2000, and it would also Info space to continue strong growth of turnover by GJ 2001, an information report on the Space has no revenue or EPS growth for fiscal 2001, but the report would be a decline in revenue and losses during the year. Given that defendant began to be unduly some of their behaviour, including the fact that the defendants’ turnover and results projected estimates were wrong, Info Space-share has dropped to less than $ 6 per share , A decrease of 95% of their period of great class of $ 138-1/2 per share.

Note Given that a Class Action Lawsuit was the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of shares of JDS Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq: JDSU; JDS Uniphase),  inclusive (the “Class Period”).The fee JDS Uniphase Corp. and certain of its officers and directors in issuing false and misleading statements about their activities and financial situation. JDS Uniphase is a provider of fiber optic components and modules, the modules of fibre optic networks. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants were motivated inflate the value of stocks, JDS Uniphase, so that the company has been through acquisitions of warehouses and individual defendants, officers and directors of JDS Uniphase, could sell their share. During the class, the accused took the view that demand was accelerating and the company, the only problem was its ability to produce enough products to meet demand. Representing the accused, they would have excellent visibility, demand for products of the company until the end of fiscal 2001 ( “F01″, ending 6/30/01), and JDS Uniphase were only 80 engineers, whose role was to monitor their customers and stocks and as a result, JDS Uniphase Thus, each about slowing demand earlier. The proposal also provides that the company improperly greatest success of its acquisitions, including optical coatings Labs, Cronos Integrated Microsystems, E-TEK Dynamics and SDL Inc. As a result of these positive statements, JDS Uniphase part acted as high that $ 146, 32

The defendant programmes (all beginning of them were officers and directors of the company) and its majority shareholder, are also responsible for the use of inflation, sale or disposal of 25.2 million ‘ JDS Uniphase shares of their stocks USD 2, 1 billion. Then, on 7/26/01, JDS Uniphase announced the revision of its results 3rdQ F01, amortization of $ 44 billion in goodwill in its acquisitions, inventory and depreciation, BPA would only F01 $ 0.16 and that there would be a deficit of $ 0.15 to F02. Of these messages, action JDS Uniphase fell as low as $ 7.90 - or more than 94% below the level of peak $ 146.32.

The law firm Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC announced that investment firms-Class Action Lawsuit began in the USA District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against Salton, Inc ( “Salton” or the “Company”), Three men Leonhard (President, director) and David M. Mulder (Chief Administrative Officer and Senior Financial), on behalf of all buyers of the shares of Salton between 11 11 November 2002 in May 2004, inclusive (the “Class Period”).The complaint alleges that the defendants against federal laws on securities, by failing to negative publicity following factors, with great negative impact on business Salton: (i) leading revenue growth and Pilots Foreman Grill, a saturated market, so it was quite predictable that sales at the stop and had to continue stopping and / or could not be counted in a continuous and sustainable revenue in the near future, (ii) the company illegal price agreements De support, was unable Salton its market position or profit margin, and (iii) across most of the class Legislature, Salton has been at the company, or agreements or debts was predictable that, in violation of these agreements. On 10 May 2004, after the exchanges, sharing a defendant has announced that Salton performance was much worse than the company had prompted investors to believe that the company is in breach of its revolving credit increased for the months ending March 27, 2004, and that expected in the short term, accused of non-compliance with certain financial agreements. As a result of this announcement, the price of Salton shares collapsed from $ 6.69 per share on May 10, 2004, to $ 3.35 per share on May 11, 2004 one-day drop of 50% to little large volumes.

pector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC has filed a class action suit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of VeriSign, Inc. All rights reserved. ( “VeriSign” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: VRSN) between January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002 , Inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California against defendants VeriSign, Inc.., And certain of its officers and directors.The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between January 25, 2001 and April 25 , 2002 (the “Class Period”), thereby artificially inflating the price of VeriSign securities. As alleged in the complaint, VeriSign provides digital trust services to businesses engaged in securing digital commerce and communications. Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, defendants artificially increased the Company’s revenue and margins thereby created the false perception that its deferred revenue growth was derived organically. As part of their effort to boost VeriSign’s stock price, defendants misrepresented VeriSign’s true prospects and concealed improper accounting activities until they could effect the sale of at least $ 26 million worth of their own stock and use VeriSign VeriSign shares to acquire other companies in stock-for - stock transactions.