Octaviar Directors Face $80 Million Class Action For Losses |
 |
A class action against former directors of embattled Gold Coast company Octaviar is seeking $80 million in damages, and counting.
The basis of the action is that shareholders should have been told the compnay needed about $500 million to continue as a going concern. This was the sum sought from a capital-raising that was announced via a teleconference by former chief executive Michael King on January 18, 2008. The announcement caused a 70 per cent drop in the company's shares the same day and the shares have been suspended ever since.
For more information, please visit http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/and contact the Maurice Blackburn frim.
At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and
settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and
other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints.
Other Stocks Cases of Interest
A class action has been filed against insurance holding company PMA Capital Corporation (Nasdaq: PMACA) and certain of its officers and directors by investors who purchased the company's common stock between November 13, 1998 and November 3, 2003. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities.
The parties have reached a tentative $10.2 million settlement of a class action filed against managed healthcare company Physician Corporation of America (Nasdaq: PCAM) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between March 31, 1996, and March 31, 1997, and still owned the stock on the latter date. To recover under the settlement, a completed proof of claim postmarked no later than December 22, 2003, must be mailed to the claims administrator.
According to a press release dated March 28, 2008, the complaint charges MoneyGram and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. MoneyGram, through its subsidiaries, provides payment services in the United States, as well as through a network of retail agents in North America, Latin America, western Europe, eastern Europe, Africa, India, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East.
A class action has been filed against Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a San Diego, CA based biopharmaceutical company (NASDAQ: LGND) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company’s common stock between July 28, 2003 and August 2, 2004. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company’s securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. A class action has been filed against Spectrum Brands, Inc. (SPC), certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between January 4, 2005 and September 6, 2005. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. Several class actions have been filed against energy holding company Progress Energy, Inc. (NYSE: PGN) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of investors who obtained Contingent Value Obligations (CVOs) in exchange for their Florida Progress common stock pursuant to the closing of the merger of CP&L Energy and Florida Progress Corporation and who purchased the CVOs between November 30, 2000, and February 12, 2002. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to inform prospective CVO holders that the tax benefits represented as being made available to synthetic fuel producers, which were critical to the imputed value of the CVOs, would be adversely affected by the application of the alternative minimum tax.
|