A federal judge in Nevada who handed horse protection advocates a rare victory last fall has rejected their latest request to block government roundups of free-roaming mustangs in the West, saying they'll have to go to Congress if they think the animals are being treated inhumanely and need more protection.
U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben granted a temporary restraining order on Aug. 30 that cut short by a day a roundup near the Nevada-Utah line after he determined a helicopter flew too close to a horse in violation of the law.
But he said during a hearing in Reno Thursday that he was denying a new injunction request from the Texas-based Free Wild Horse Federation partly because the Bureau of Land Management has made some positive changes since then. He also said he can't issue injunctions based on speculation about future abuses.
"This court is really not in a position to be the overseer of the BLM," McKibben said. "This court is not going to police all gathers in the U.S. or even all gathers in the district of northern Nevada."
"This Court is not Congress, not an administrative agency. We are not the first branch of government. We are not the second branch. We're here to consider grievances," he said.
His ruling was a disappointment to horse protection advocates who were buoyed by his court order last fall when he took the BLM to task for its actions at the Triple B complex roundup near the Nevada-Utah line northwest of Ely, Nev.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of Collective Brands, Inc. common stock during the period between December 1, 2010 and May 24, 2011.
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/collectivebrands/. 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 Collective Brands and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collective Brands is the holding company for three lines of business: Payless ShoeSource (“Payless”), Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (“PLG”), and Collective Licensing. The Company was formerly known as Payless ShoeSource, Inc. and changed its name to Collective Brands in August 2007.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Collective Brands stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $23.44 per share on February 18, 2011.
On May 24, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted earnings per share expected by analysts. The Company further reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless domestic segment, offset by sales growth of 22.5% in PLG. On this news, Collective Brands stock collapsed $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 17%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s inventory level for Payless remained at excessively high levels and aging inventory for its Payless segment was a concern; (b) sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores were significantly worse than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and (c) the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s bloated inventory at significant discounts, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Collective Brands 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.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against TranS1 Inc., and certain of its officers. The class action (7:12-cv-00023-F), filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased TranS1 securities during the period between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased TranS1 securities during the Class Period, you have until March 26, 2012 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 Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529, toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
TranS1 designs, develops, and markets medical devices to treat degenerative disc disease affecting the lower lumbar region of the spine. The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, TranS1 made false and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was not in compliance with federal healthcare fraud and false claim statutes; (2) the Company engaged in improper reimbursement practices; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
