Law firm – Farris Law Firm Fri, 11 Jun 2021 17:06:17 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Law firm – Farris Law Firm 32 32 Oscar Health, Inc. Investors: Company studied by the Fri, 11 Jun 2021 16:53:30 +0000

Investors can contact the law firm toll-free to learn more about recovering their losses

LOS ANGELES, June 11, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) – The Portnoy law firm informs investors of Oscar Health, Inc. (“Oscar” or the “Company” (NYSE: OSCR) that the company has opened an investigation into possible securities fraud and may file a class action on behalf of the investors.

Investors are encouraged to contact a lawyer Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 310-692-8883 or E-mail:, to discuss their legal rights, or Click here join the case via The Portnoy law firm can provide a further case assessment and discuss investors’ options to pursue claims to recover their losses.

Oscar provides health insurance products and services to individuals, families and businesses in the United States. Oscar was previously known as Mulberry Health Inc. and in January 2021 changed its name to “Oscar Health, Inc. In its initial public offering, Oscar sold approximately 37 million shares on March 3, 2021 at 39.00 $ a share, raising nearly $ 1.4 billion in new capital. On May 13, 2021, Oscar announced its financial results for the first quarter of 2021, reporting a loss of $ 87.4 million or $ 0.98 per share, which was well below analysts’ expectations of a loss of $ 0.53 per share.

Please visit our website to view more information and submit your transaction information.

The Portnoy law firm represents investors in lawsuits arising from corporate wrongdoing. The company’s founding partner has recovered more than $ 5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Lawyer advertising. Past results do not guarantee similar results.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
CA and NY bar admitted

Lawyer Advertising

Source link

]]> 0
EXCLUSIVE Memo from Eli Lilly Says Company Did Not Make False Claims to FDA Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:00:00 +0000

A week before Eli Lilly (LLY.N) revealed to regulators that the US Department of Justice was investigating its New Jersey plant, the drugmaker told employees that its own investigation, conducted by a firm of outside attorneys, had found no evidence of wrongdoing there, according to a company memo reviewed by Reuters.

On April 8, a group of employees filed an anonymous internal complaint alleging that an executive at its Branchburg, New Jersey plant had changed documents required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

As Reuters reported last month, Lilly brought in Washington DC law firm Covington & Burling LLP to investigate the alleged changes, which employees said were aimed at downplaying serious quality control issues. in the drug manufacturer’s COVID-19 antibody treatment plant.

In a note to Branchburg employees on May 20, Nellie Clark, plant manager, summarized the findings of the outside lawyers: “Ultimately, and this is very important, the allegations that Lilly made false claims to the FDA were unfounded. “

A week after the note was released to employees, Reuters reported that the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation focused on the Branchburg plant. That same day, May 27, Lilly reported to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that she had received a subpoena from the department requesting documents related to the plant.

The company said it was cooperating with the Justice Ministry’s investigation and that an external law firm “is also fully investigating these allegations.”

It was not clear which investigation – the company or the government – was launched first and to what extent the topics coincide. However, as Reuters reported last month, based on three sources familiar with the matter, the Justice Department’s investigation into Lilly includes a review of allegations of manufacturing irregularities and falsification of records.

Lilly spokeswoman Kathryn Beiser and a spokesperson for the Department of Justice declined to comment. Clark did not respond to a request for comment. A Covington spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment or a request for a copy of the company’s report.

The Covington investigation is important because Lilly’s handling of any allegations by employees will likely be considered by U.S. prosecutors when they assess whether there are grounds to pursue criminal prosecution, bring a civil action, or sue. refuse to bring an action, said several legal experts.

Government prosecutors often wonder if a company made a real effort to investigate and deal with potentially illegal activity once they became aware of it.

If the Justice Department concludes that an internal investigation was thorough, it may result in a no-prosecution agreement with little or no penalties, experts said. However, a company-led investigation that appears to have been mismanaged could lead to more difficult results.

“Whenever a company hires an outside lawyer to conduct an investigation, the Department of Justice takes it very seriously,” said Paul Pelletier, a longtime former federal prosecutor who oversaw corporate criminal investigations.

Covington has handled dozens of cases for Lilly over the past 20 years, according to the Westlaw Database of Legal Cases and Press Releases, including intellectual property issues, personal injury lawsuits and class actions.

The firm also has several attorneys whose reputations would hold weight with the Justice Department and the FDA, including former Attorney General Eric Holder, legal experts have said. Gerald Masoudi, the Covington partner who handled the recent investigation for Lilly, previously served as chief counsel for the FDA. Masoudi did not respond to requests for comment.


The company-backed survey was based on interviews with more than 100 people, according to the May 20 memo to Lilly employees. However, the memo did not address all of the employee concerns raised in their April complaint, which Reuters reviewed.

The memo denies that the company made any false claims to the FDA. In their complaint, employees said they were generally concerned that the quality control documents the FDA requires companies to maintain have been rewritten or fabricated. Employees did not say whether the materials had been shown to the FDA.

The company’s memo said Lilly could not substantiate allegations that employees risked retaliation for refusing to make false statements. He did not address specific complaints from employees that they were being retaliated against for other reasons, except to say that he encouraged employees to “speak up.”

The Branchburg plant was first reviewed by the FDA in late 2019, when the agency’s inspectors began documenting numerous quality control issues. As of March 2020, the FDA had rated manufacturing issues as “indicated official action,” its most serious category of violation.

Lilly is committed to fixing the issues and said none of them affected the drugs on the market. The FDA, which took no public action, did not respond to requests for comment.

In March 2021, Reuters reported that a former Lilly human resources manager, Amrit Mula, had internally identified some of the same violations later documented by the FDA. Mula was forced out of the company in early 2019 after Lilly executives sought to play down her findings, according to a letter demanding compensation for damages her lawyers sent to the company.

Lilly has denied retaliating against employees and no lawsuits have been filed on Mula’s behalf.

In October 2020, the Trump administration ordered $ 375 million worth of COVID-19 antibody therapy bamlanivimab from Lilly, which is manufactured at the Branchburg plant.

One US Senator, New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez, called the allegations of manufacturing irregularities and falsification of records at the Branchburg plant “troubling.” Menendez sponsored a bill calling for a non-partisan and independent COVID-19 commission to examine the US response to the pandemic, including government contracts with companies.

“These reports have raised serious questions that need answers,” Menendez said of Reuters coverage. “I expect this administration will coordinate across agencies to get to the bottom of this and that Eli Lilly will cooperate fully with any ongoing investigation.”

Our standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source link

]]> 0
SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Law firm Pomerantz is investigating claims on behalf of investors in Oscar Health, Inc. Thu, 10 Jun 2021 03:53:00 +0000

NEW YORK, June 9, 2021 / PRNewswire / – Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Oscar Health, Inc. (“Oscar” or the “Company”) (NYSE: OSCR). These investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at [email protected] or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether Oscar and any of its officers and / or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other illegal business practices.

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

On or around March 3, 2021, Oscar completed its initial public offering (“IPO”), selling approximately 37 million shares at a price of $ 39.00 per share. Then on May 13, 2021, Oscar announced his earnings for the first time since the company’s IPO. Among other results, Oscar reported a loss of $ 87.4 million, or $ 0.98 per share, for the first quarter of 2021, compared to analysts’ estimates that the Company would report a loss of only $ 0.53 per share.

On this news, Oscar’s share price fell $ 1.63 per share, or 7.36%, to close at $ 20.51 per share on May 13, 2021.

The Pomerantz firm, with offices in new York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is recognized as one of the leading firms in the areas of corporate law, securities and antitrust litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz was a pioneer in the field of class actions in securities. Today, more than 80 years later, Pomerantz continues the tradition it established, fighting for the rights of victims of securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and corporate misconduct. The firm has recovered numerous multi-million dollar damages on behalf of the members of the group. See

Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz srl
[email protected]

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP

Related links

Source link

]]> 0
Lawsuit of ex-minister Zaid Ibrahim against a major law firm using his name to stand trial | Malaysia Wed, 09 Jun 2021 11:32:48 +0000

Judge Ahmad said the complainant could still start his own business under a different style and name because he “wanted to get his name back”, albeit without the “and Co”, for example, “Zaid Ibrahim and Associates” or ” The Chambers of Zaid Ibrahim ‘. – Photo by Saw Siow Feng

KUALA LUMPUR, June 9 – The High Court today rejected a request by the law firm Zaid Ibrahim & Co (Zico) to quash a lawsuit brought by the former minister of Prime Minister Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim’s department to prevent the firm to use its name in the practice of law and to require the return of the firm’s name.

Judge Datuk Ahmad Bache ruled that it was not appropriate and appropriate to decide the case on the sole basis of pleadings and affidavits.

In the ruling made available to the media, Judge Ahmad said the court had read all the affidavits and was satisfied that the two sides disagreed on many issues as there are many conflicting facts between them.

“Therefore, a trial should be conducted in which witnesses will be called to testify. They can be examined, cross-examined and reviewed. The defendant (Zico) ‘s request to strike out is hereby dismissed without an order for costs, ”he said in his e-mailed decision today.

The judge also dismissed Mohd Zaid’s request for an interim injunction to bar the law firm from using his name for practice, pending a resolution of his lawsuit.

Judge Ahmad said the plaintiff could still set up his own firm under a different style and name because he “wanted to get his name back” although without the “and Co”, for example, “Zaid Ibrahim and Associates” or “The Chambers of Zaid Ibrahim ”.

“The claimant never provided any evidence that he would have difficulty finding work if he could not use the name Zaid Ibrahim & Co. In fact, there is no evidence provided by the claimant that takes steps to set up a law firm.

The plaintiff also did not demonstrate urgently to prevent the cabinet from using his name, because he only recently filed this action, after having served there for a long time, ”he said.

The judge said the court previously ruled that after Mohd Zaid sold his remaining shares in the company in 2008, not only did he cease to be a partner, but he no longer had an interest in the defendant.

Therefore, he stated that, as not being a partner of the business, the plaintiff had no rights over its assets, including goodwill.

Judge Ahmad further said that if the injunction was granted, it would affect the livelihoods of many people working with the firm, namely 250 staff, including partners, lawyers and staff, and it would have also a negative impact on the anchor firm Zico Law, a Network of Asean law firms.

The judge said that being Malaysia’s largest law firm, the defendant also at one point held significant sums of money as stakeholders, including the sale of the infamous Equanimity yacht.

“The level of confidence in the company is such that if the injunction is granted, there will be a huge potential for losses for the company financially, and for its goodwill and reputation that the plaintiff would not be able to. compensate, “he said before setting August. 17 for case management.

Mohd Zaid was represented by lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar while Tan Sri Tommy Thomas appeared for Zico.

On November 24 last year, Mohd Zaid filed a subpoena and declaration against Zico to prevent the firm from using his name in legal practice and to demand the return of the firm’s name, in addition to seeking an injunction for prevent the defendant from using their name in any form or style as the business name.

Meanwhile, Zico said in a statement that he welcomes the decision and will continue with business as usual.

The statement added that the firm never challenged the complainant’s right to establish his own law firm with his own name in a different style. – Bernama

Source link

]]> 0
Trump impeachment attorneys representing those indicted in the January 6 riot on the U.S. Capitol: NPR Tue, 08 Jun 2021 19:21:08 +0000

Lawyer Bruce Castor represented former President Donald Trump in his Senate trial after the House of Representatives impeached Trump for “incitement to insurgency.” Castor is now defending two people facing misdemeanor charges related to the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill.


hide caption

toggle legend


Lawyer Bruce Castor represented former President Donald Trump in his Senate trial after the House of Representatives impeached Trump for “incitement to insurgency.” Castor is now defending two people facing misdemeanor charges related to the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill.


Lawyers Michael van der Veen and Bruce Castor have defended former President Donald Trump during his Senate impeachment trial for allegedly inciting the U.S. Capitol uprising on January 6.

Even though van der Veen, Castor, and Trump’s defense team called the impeachment “political theater” and ultimately secured Trump’s acquittal, they condemned the rioters for causing “havoc, chaos and destruction. unprecedented death “on the Capitol. They argued in a legal brief that the actions of the rioters deserved “a solid and prompt investigation and prosecution.”

Now van der Veen and Castor find themselves on the other side of those lawsuits, defending at least three people indicted in connection with the Capitol violation.

Attorneys allege that van der Veen’s client, Marine Corps veteran Jason Dolan of Florida, is affiliated with the extremist militia The Oath Keepers, and that he helped plan and ultimately participated in the storming of the Capitol.

Castor represents two defendants facing much less serious charges.

Kristina Malimon, 28, and her mother Yevgeniya Malimon, 54, were arrested on the evening of January 6 outside the Capitol. According to court documents, the two men did not follow repeated police orders to disperse in violation of a curfew. Authorities in Washington, DC have accused the two women with illegal entry of public property, a misdemeanor. Neither has been accused of committing violence or violating the Capitol building. They both pleaded not guilty in Superior Court in Washington, DC.

Michael van der Veen, left, and Bruce Castor speak with reporters on Capitol Hill after the Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial. The two men now represent defendants facing charges related to the Capitol Riot.

Alex Brandon / AP

hide caption

toggle legend

Alex Brandon / AP

Michael van der Veen, left, and Bruce Castor speak with reporters on Capitol Hill after the Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial. The two men now represent defendants facing charges related to the Capitol Riot.

Alex Brandon / AP

Van der Veen and Castor did not respond to NPR phone and email messages requesting an interview. It is not known how they came to represent these defendants and whether their experience in the impeachment trial could inform their legal arguments.

Castor’s first defense of Trump has been widely criticized by Republicans, Democrats, legal watchers and late-night comics as “hiking, “”Random, “”winding, “and by at least one Senate Republican like”not one of the best i have seenAs NPR reported, Trump himself had been unhappy with Castor’s performance from the start.

Initially, other lawyers had represented the Malimon.

But the yard documents show that in recent months the Malimons have replaced these lawyers with Castor.

Todd S. Baldwin, who originally represented Yevgeniya Malimon, confirmed his former client had sought “outside advice,” but declined to comment. Michelle Stephens, who previously represented Kristina Malimon, did not respond to a phone message from NPR.

Kristina Malimon is linked to Republican politics, which may provide clues as to how she withheld Castor’s legal aid. Malimon served as vice president of the Young Republicans of Oregon, Republican Party delegate for Multnomah County, and ambassador for Turning Point USA, an organization for pro-Trump conservative youth.

In August 2020, Malimon helped organize a pro-Trump boat parade on the Willamette River in Oregon. A boat, which was not part of the parade, has sunk when the parade sent wakes crashing down on its sides.

On her Instagram account, she posted videos of the pro-Trump rally outside the Capitol on Jan.6 and previously posted a selfie with longtime Trump adviser and convicted criminal Roger Stone, according to the Associated press. (Trump pardoned Stone in December 2020.) This Instagram account now appears to have been disabled.

Meanwhile, the militia to which Jason Dolan is believed to belong, the Oath Keepers, ensured Stone’s safety during several events. the New York Times first reported the connection between the Oath Keepers and Stone, and Stone has denied any knowledge or involvement in the Capitol Riot.

Van der Veen founded the law firm where Castor works, and the firm focuses on both personal injury and criminal defense cases.

Prior to representing the Malimons and, prior to that, Trump, Castor was a district attorney for Montgomery County, Penn. During his tenure, Castor refused to bring criminal charges against actor and comedian Bill Cosby, after Andrea Constand accused Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting her.

Castor’s decision was heavily criticized, especially after other women accused Cosby of a pattern of sexual misconduct that spanned decades. Another prosecutor eventually laid charges against Cosby regarding the assault on Constand, and in 2018 a jury found Cosby guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault against her.

Later, Castor became involved in Trump’s second impeachment trial through his cousin, Stephen Castor, a Republican lawyer who previously helped defend Trump in his first impeachment. Bruce Castor then enlisted van der Veen as part of the legal effort.

The two men told Philadelphia Radio WPHT that they did not regret their defense of Trump and recounted how they were pampered by staff at the Trump International Hotel during the trial.

“They ironed my underwear,” van der Veen said. “Every morning I would wake up with ironed underwear!”

Castor said Trump “didn’t like the way I looked on TV,” so the former president had Brioni costumes made for Castor “overnight” to make him more telegenic.

“They treated us like royalty,” added van der Veen.

Given their experience on the case, van der Veen told the Philadelphia Business Journal that his company would seek more high profile cases. “I think you’ll see us hopefully tackling other hot issues,” he said.

Source link

]]> 0
Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing Against Pinterest, Inc. and Certain Executives Tue, 08 Jun 2021 00:33:00 +0000

NEW YORK, June 7, 2021 / PRNewswire / – Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinterest, Inc. (“Pinterest” or the “Company”) (NYSE: PINS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court of the North District of California, and listed as 21-cv-04220, is in the name of a class made up of all persons and entities other than the Defendants who have purchased or otherwise acquired Pinterest securities between February 4, 2021 and April 27, 2021, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The plaintiff is pursuing actions against the defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Pinterest securities during the Class Period, you have up to June 28, 2021 ask the court to appoint you as the principal plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at [email protected] or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, Ext. 7980. Those inquiring by e-mail are encouraged to provide their mailing address, telephone number and the number of shares purchased.

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

Pinterest operates a platform that claims to inspire the lives of its users. Monthly active users is the number of Pinterest users who interact with Pinterest at least once during the 30-day period ending on the measurement date.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading representations regarding the Company’s business, operations and compliance policies. Specifically, the defendants made false and / or misleading statements and / or failed to disclose that: (i) user growth was already slowing; (ii) as a result, the Company expected user engagement to slow in the second quarter of 2021; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants’ positive statements regarding the business, operations and prospects of the Company were substantially misleading and / or lacked reasonable basis.

At April 27, 2021, after the market closed, Pinterest reported its financial results for the first quarter of 2021 and reported that global monthly active users grew only 30% year-on-year to 478 million, down from the growth of 37% year-on-year from the previous quarter. In a conference call held the same day, the CEO of Pinterest said that “[a]s pandemic lockdowns were eased in parts of the world in mid-March, we started to see signs of less user engagement and growth on Pinterest. “

Following this news, the Company’s share price fell $ 11.25 per share, or 14.5%, to close at $ 66.33 per share on April 28, 2021, on an unusually high volume of transactions.

The Pomerantz firm, with offices in new York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is recognized as one of the leading firms in the areas of corporate law, securities and antitrust litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class actions bar, the Pomerantz law firm was a pioneer in the field of class actions in securities. Today, more than 80 years later, Pomerantz continues the tradition it established, fighting for the rights of victims of securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and professional misconduct. The firm has recovered numerous multi-million dollar damages on behalf of the members of the group. See

Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz srl
[email protected]
888-476-6529 ext 7980

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP

Related links

Source link

]]> 0
Deadline Reminder: Howard G. Smith Law Firm Reminds Investors That Ubiquity Class Action Deadline Is Looming (UI) | Mon, 07 Jun 2021 16:10:24 +0000

Bensalem, Pennsylvania, June 7, 2021 / PRNewswire / –Law Firm Howard G. Smith Remind investors to: July 19, 2021 Deadline for filing complaints in proceedings filed on behalf of investors who have purchased Ubiquiti Inc. (“Ubiquiti” or “Company”) securities (NYSE: UI) January 11, 2021 And March 30, 2021, Full (“class period”).

Investors who have lost money on their ubiquity investment are advised to contact the following law firms: Howard G. Smith Discuss the legal rights in this class action lawsuit at 888-638-4847 or by email

at March 30, 2021, After the market closes Krebs The security article published an article titled “Whistleblower: Ubiquity Violation ‘Catastrophic”. January 2021 And, according to the “third-party cloud provider’s claim was a forgery,” the attacker “accessed privileged credentials previously stored in the LastPass account of an Ubiquiti IT employee at all Ubiquiti AWS. I have root administrator access. [Amazon Web Services] An account that contains all S3 data buckets, all application logs, all databases, all user database credentials, and the secret required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies . “Rather than getting credentials and forcing a reset and asking the customer to change their password the next time they log in.

The news caused the company’s stock price to plummet $ 50.70, Or close at 14.5% $ 298.30 Per share March 31, 2021, About an unusually large volume of transactions.

The complaint filed in this class action lawsuit not only made a materially false and / or misleading statement by the defendant during the class action lawsuit, but also exposed materially adverse facts about our business, operations and prospects. I insist that I did not. Specifically, the defendant was unable to speak fully and honestly in his statement regarding the data breach because he did not disclose it to investors: (1) We minimized the data breach. January 2021(2) An attacker obtains administrative access to Ubiquiti’s servers and, among other things, access to all databases, all user database credentials and secrets necessary to forge cookies single sign-on (SSO). Acquired the law. (3) As a result, the intruder already had the necessary credentials to remotely access Ubiquiti’s customer system. (4) As a result of the foregoing, the Respondent’s positive remarks regarding our business, business and outlook were significantly misleading and / or lacking reasonable grounds.

If you buy or otherwise acquire Ubiquity securities during the class action period, you can go to court at the latest. July 19, 2021 If you meet certain legal requirements, ask the court to appoint you as the principal plaintiff. You do not have to do anything at this time to become a member of a class action. You can retain the services of the lawyer of your choice or do nothing and remain absent from the class action. If you would like to know more about this class action, or if you have any questions regarding this announcement or your rights or interests in these matters, Howard G. Smith, squire, Law office Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, office 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by phone (215) 638-4847, toll free (888) 638-4847, or by email, Or visit the following website:

This press release may be considered an attorney’s advertisement in certain jurisdictions under applicable law and ethical rules.

a law firm Howard G. Smith

Source law firm Howard G. Smith

Deadline Reminder: Howard G. Smith Law Firm Reminds Investors That Ubiquity Class Action Deadline Is Looming (UI) |

Source link Deadline Reminder: Howard G. Smith Law Firm Reminds Investors That Ubiquity Class Action Deadline Is Looming (UI) |

Source link

]]> 0
Lancaster Law Firm Managing Partner Wins Top Award for Inspiring Women Mon, 07 Jun 2021 03:55:00 +0000

Jennifer Grabowski, Managing Partner at Oglethorpe Sturton & Gillibrand, with her Women in Law Award.

Jennifer Grabowski, Managing Partner at Oglethorpe Sturton & Gillibrand, with her Women in Law Award.

Jennifer Grabowski, 41, won the Women in Law category at the prestigious She Inspires Awards.

In their praise, the judges said, “Jennifer is the managing partner of a law firm that is over 200 years old. She is also a full-time corporate and commercial lawyer, working with local and regional businesses looking to buy, sell, grow or simply protect their business.

“A mother of three, she tries to lead by example to show that it is possible to have both a family and a career to be proud of.”

Jennifer received her former Emmerdale actor award and 2019 Strictly Come Dancing winner Kelvin Fletcher.

“I was thrilled to win the award,” said Jennifer, who is married and lives in Lancaster. “It is very nice to be recognized, although I am slightly embarrassed by the attention.”

She added: “I hope this sends a positive message to the large number of young women in the profession – to remind them that you can achieve something meaningful without having to change who you are.”

After graduating from Cambridge University, Jennifer trained and qualified at the international law firm White & Case in London.

After a four-year period at Osborne Clarke, a leading business law firm in the Thames Valley and Southwest region, she joined Oglethorpe Sturton & Gillibrand, which has offices in Lancaster and Kirkby Lonsdale. , in 2011. She became a partner in 2014 and managing partner three years later.

“The legal profession is the only career path I have ever considered,” she said. “It’s hard work, but I was drawn to the intellectual challenge.

“In addition, I often represent owners who sell a business they have created from scratch. It can be quite an emotional time for them so when working with them on the sale it is rewarding to make sure they get the best possible result and feel good about their decision.

She said she always tries to remember that her role at Oglethorpe Sturton & Gillibrand, which employs around 60 people, is not just to do your own job. “It is to support and encourage all of our other staff to do their own jobs to the best of their ability for the good of our customers and to be happy at work. “

She added: “I am proud to be the Managing Partner of the firm. I am the first woman to be a Managing Partner in the firm’s 200-year history and the fact that my fellow Associates, for whom I have a great deal of respect, have chosen me to lead this practice is a huge responsibility but also a great honor. “

Source link

]]> 0
US law firm examines € 9.8 billion Icon / PRA deal Sun, 06 Jun 2021 01:30:00 +0000

A US law firm has opened an investigation into PRA Health, a clinical trials company, into its $ 12 billion (€ 9.8 billion) merger with its Irish counterpart ICON plc.

alper Sadeh LLP, a New York-based investor rights law firm, said it was investigating PRA in a statement relating to various reviews of companies it undertakes.

On the Halper Sadeh website, he said he was investigating whether the sale of PRA to ICON is fair to the shareholders of the American company. Under the terms of the transaction, PRA shareholders will receive $ 80 in cash and 0.4125 ICON shares for each PRA Health share they own.

The statement on the website added that the investigation is into whether PRA and its board of directors violated federal securities laws and / or violated their obligations to shareholders. These included securing the best possible consideration for PRA shareholders, determining whether ICON is underpaying PRA and disclosing all material information needed by PRA shareholders to assess merger consideration.

Halper Sadeh could ask for “increased compensation” for shareholders. Its website includes a link allowing PRA shareholders to participate in a “share”.

PRA, ICON and Halper Sadeh did not respond to a request for comment.

Source link

]]> 0
LEADING LAW FIRM ROSEN encourages Credit Suisse Group Sat, 05 Jun 2021 17:16:00 +0000

NEW YORK, June 5, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) – WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds buyers of securities of Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS) between October 29, 2020 and March 31, 2021 inclusive (the “Class Period” ), the importance June 15, 2021, lead applicant deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased securities of Credit Suisse during the Class Period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any fees or direct costs under a contingency fee agreement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Credit Suisse class action lawsuit, go to or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or by emailing or for information on the class action. A class action has already been filed. If you want to serve as the principal applicant, you must move the court no later than June 15, 2021. A principal plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of the other members of the class to direct the litigation.

WHY THE ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified advisors with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, review companies do not have comparable experience or resources. Rosen law firm represents investors around the world, focusing its practice on class actions in securities and derivative litigation between shareholders. Rosen law firm has secured the largest securities class action settlement against a Chinese company. Rosen law firm was ranked # 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for the number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 every year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone, the company raised more than $ 438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was appointed by law360 as the Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s lawyers have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

CASE DETAILS: Depending on the lawsuits, the defendants throughout the litigation period made false and / or misleading statements and / or failed to disclose that: (1) Credit Suisse’s commingling of its lending, management functions asset and private wealth management and the recklessly aggressive pursuit of fees had significantly diminished the Company’s ability to properly assess and manage its own risk exposure to high-risk clients and the potential liabilities resulting from losses of clients. clients ; (2) Credit Suisse had ignored many red flags related to Greensill Capital funds, such as suspicious shipping activity during an internal compliance check, and ignored the concerns of the internal fund structuring team. credit the company by packing and selling billions of dollars’ worth of Greensill-related securities to investors; (3) Credit Suisse conspired with Sung Kook (“Bill”) Hwang to allow Archegos Capital Management to covertly take billions of dollars in excessively concentrated and risky positions using highly leveraged total return swaps, placing the risk of loss associated with these positions on Credit Suisse and its investors; (4) Credit Suisse underestimated its risk exposure and thus overestimated its Tier 1 capital ratios in its public statements; and (5) Credit Suisse’s internal controls were inadequate to ensure that the Company’s potential liability to customers and losses resulting from its exposure to customer losses were properly recognized, managed and disclosed to investors. When the real details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors have suffered damage.

To join the Credit Suisse class action lawsuit, go to or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or by emailing or for information on the class action.

No class has been certified. Until a group is certified, you are not represented by a lawyer unless you hire one. You can choose the lawyer of your choice. You can also remain an absent group member and do nothing at this point. The ability of an investor to participate in any potential future recovery does not depend on whether he or she is a lead applicant.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:, on Twitter: or on Facebook:

Lawyer advertising. Previous results do not guarantee a similar result.


Contact information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Rosen Law Firm, Pennsylvania
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Phone. : (212) 686-1060
Toll free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827

Source link

]]> 0