Latest Posts

Vancouver Family Lawyers Kushner Law Group Discuss Interim Distributions

/EINPresswire.com/ — VANCOUVER, BC–(Marketwired – September 21, 2017) – As team of family lawyers, the team at Kushner Group understand that litigation can get expensive fast. This can present a special challenge for separated partners where there is a substantial disparity in economic positions. The British Columbia legislature has attempted to remedy this through section 89 of the Family Law Act which allows the Court to make an interim distribution of assets to pay past and future litigation expenses. For more, go to: http://kushnerlaw.ca/interim-distributions-family-law/

A party can apply to the Court for an interim distribution of assets, which will enable them to pay past and future litigation expenses along with associated costs of litigation, including experts such as business valuators.

This issue was considered by the Honourable Mr. Justice G.P. Weatherill in the decision of Bartch v. Bartch, 2017 BCSC 210. The decision for granting an application under s. 89 of the Family Law Act was described by Justice Weatherill as follows:

[22] The test for granting a section 89 order requires that the respondent show necessity for the distribution and that it would not be prejudicial to the claimant. Mr. Tretiak refers me to Master McDiarmid’s comments in Drinkall v. Drinkall, 2016 BCSC 373, in particular at paragraph 82 where the learned Master cites Justice Fitch, as he then was, in McKenny v. McKenny, 2015 BCSC 1345, at paragraph 57:

The claimant correctly notes that the order sought by the respondent is extraordinary in nature and must be assessed carefully. The test governing interim distribution of family property has two components:

  1. The applicant must show an advance is required to mount a challenge to the other spouse’s position at trial; and
  2. The applicant must show that the advance or payment on an interim distribution basis will not jeopardize the other spouse’s position at trial.

[23] I agree that this summary accurately sets out the test for granting an order under s. 89. However, I also agree that the main purpose of a s. 89 order is to level the playing field in the sense of the parties’ access to justice. In I.F. v. R.J.R., 2015 BCSC 793, Madam Justice Ballance stated at paras. 190, 191, and 194:

[190] In none of the cases yet decided of which I have been made aware has the court confronted the thorny question of the impact of a marriage agreement that, if enforceable, would preclude the applicant spouse from the division of family property.

[191] The provision itself does not bar the making of an interim order where there is an existing agreement concerning property division. I can conceive of no principled basis to read such a limitation into section 89 or to otherwise consider the existence of such an agreement as an absolute bar to relief.

[194] In cases where the applicant may be precluded from entitlement to the family property based on a pre-existing agreement, the notion of being harmful to the other spouse’s interests could also take the form of the court permitting a distribution so as to enable the funding of an unmeritorious claim. A reasonable way to attenuate that manifestation of harm is to require the applicant to show there is a reasonable prospect of success of impeaching the subject agreement. The claimant in the case at hand has satisfied that hurdle.

[24] Also in Negus v. Yehia, 2015 BCSC 857, the court stated in relation to s. 89 orders:

[8] The words in s. 89, “not be harmful to the interests of a spouse”, have to be reasonably interpreted in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada’s instruction on statutory interpretation found in cases such as Bell ExpressVu v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42.

The fact that it may be commercially inconvenient or awkward for Mr. Yehia to generate these funds does not mean that it is harmful to his interests within the meaning of the section. I do not see credible evidence to support a finding of harm here, within the meaning of section 89, as I understand the section and its purpose.

Professional legal consultation is imperative to make sure family disputes can be settled reasonably and fairly. For a consultation, contact Kushner Law Group at 604-629-0432 or info@kushnerlaw.ca.

About the Company

The Kushner Law Group was founded on the principle that a small law firm should be able to offer the same level of legal advice as a big firm at an affordable cost. A unique combination of legal experience and creativity allows the professionals at Kushner to come up with creative and practical solutions for a variety of legal problems.

For additional information, please visit http://kushnerlaw.ca/ or call 604-629-0432.

IMPORTANT SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Lundin Law PC Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit against Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. and Reminds Investors with Losses to Contact the Firm

/EIN News/ — LOS ANGELES, Sept. 21, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action lawsuit against Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. (“Vitamin Shoppe” or the “Company”) (NYSE:VSI) for possible violations of federal securities laws from March 1, 2017 through August 6, 2017, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the firm prior to the October 27, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, click here.

You can also call Brian Lundin, Esq., of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or you can e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Vitamin Shoppe made false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose: that the Company’s retail segment was continuing to dramatically decline; that the Company’s ongoing “reinvention plan” had been unsuccessful and brought more than $168 million in goodwill impairment, and it was not properly recognizing that impairment charge; and that as a result of the above, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When this news was announced, shares of Vitamin Shoppe declined in value materially, which caused investors harm according to the Complaint.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, Esq., a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders’ rights.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethics rules.

Contact:

Lundin Law PC
Brian Lundin, Esq.
Telephone: 888-713-1033
Facsimile: 888-713-1125
brian@lundinlawpc.com
http://lundinlawpc.com/

Primary Logo

Supreme Court Expands Education Rights of Special Needs Students

San Francisco, CA (Law Firm Newswire) September 21, 2017 – The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that school districts must strive to offer special education programs that go beyond minimal teaching. Disability advocacy groups believe the decision could significantly expand the rights of the nation’s 6.4 million special needs students.

Chief Justice John Roberts said public schools must meet higher standards by developing programs that allow students to make progress and “have the chance to meet challenging objectives” in light of their disabilities. However, Roberts did not specify the nature of the progress, saying it varies according to the “unique circumstances” of each special needs child. He added that there should also be deference to the judgment and expertise of school officials.

“The Supreme Court decision provides school districts the opportunity to re-examine their special educational programs and ensure they are consistent with the newly clarified national standard,” commented special needs attorney Michael Gilfix. “Like other students, children with disabilities deserve to get the support necessary to help them advance in school and achieve meaningful educational goals.”

The ruling helped define the scope of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Under the federal law, public schools are required to provide special needs students with a “free and appropriate public education.” Lower courts have been divided on the standard of education the law guarantees. With its decision, the high court rejected a lower standard set by the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

The case concerned Endrew, an autistic teen in Colorado. His parents enrolled him in private school, saying their public school did not do enough to help their son make academic progress. The school district denied the parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement, maintaining it had fulfilled the minimum education standards required under federal law. Although the lower courts ruled against the parents, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with them.

Special education advocacy groups largely welcomed the high court ruling. They said it would help push schools to set more ambitious goals tailored to each student’s specific needs. However, critics argued the bar was not raised high enough to ensure that educational programs for disabled students were “substantially equal” to those of children without disabilities.

In addition, some school officials said that most districts are already providing special needs students with a sound education. They also warned that implementing higher standards could raise costs for certain school districts that are already struggling financially.

Facebook: Like Us!

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA |

Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman’s 12 Million Dollar Estate Planning Error

Fairfax, VA (Law Firm Newswire) September 21, 2017 – Philip Seymour Hoffman, a famous actor, died in 2014, and left behind his girlfriend, Mimi O’Donnell, and their three children, ages 10, seven and five. Because he did not wish to have “trust fund kids,” he had a will in which he left his estate, which was worth $35 million, to his girlfriend, who was to take care of their children.

However, the lack of estate planning resulted in his estate incurring an estate tax in the amount of about $12 million. Had Hoffman married Mimi, his family would have realized savings of approximately $12 million and not owed any estate tax. Hoffman also stated that funds were to be applied toward his kids’ travels to major metropolitan areas, including New York, Chicago and San Francisco, for the sole purpose of exposing them to the arts, culture and architecture that those cities have to offer.

Virginia estate planning attorney Lisa McDevitt says, “The importance of proper estate planning cannot be overlooked.” “By consulting an estate planning attorney, individuals and their families can realize significant tax savings, and can avoid claims to their assets by creditors and other interested parties.”

Had Hoffman consulted with an estate planning attorney, his children would have received any percentage of assets that would have been bequeathed to them once they reached age 18. Estate planning could have been used by Hoffman to minimize or avoid tax liabilities upon his death.

However, upon completion of probate, Hoffman’s estate will be at risk after Mimi receives her bequest in the event she is the defendant in a lawsuit, her assets are pursued by creditors, or in a subsequent divorce if she marries. Her inheritance may also be diminished by a second estate tax upon her demise. The children, could also face claims to Hoffman’s estate

Instead, Hoffman could have made a provision for Mimi with a Personal Asset Trust, which would have helped to shield her from divorce, lawsuits by predators and creditors, and a second estate tax on her bequest at her death. Furthermore, he could have included economic incentives to provide motivation for his children. For instance, he could have stipulated that his children receive distributions at certain ages, when they would be more likely to be sufficiently mature to handle such a large sum of money. For instance, an arrangement could have been made for them to receive one-third at age 25, one-third at age 30, and one-third at age 35.

Lisa Lane McDevitt
2155 Bonaventure Drive
Vienna, VA 22181
Phone: 571-271-1446
http://www.mcdevittlaw.net/

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA |

EQUITY ALERT: Rosen Law Firm Announces Filing of Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against PetMed Express, Inc. – PETS

NEW YORK, Sept. 20, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PetMed Express, Inc. (NASDAQ:PETS) from May 8, 2017 through August 23, 2017, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PetMed investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the PetMed class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1199.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company was marketing dangerous and addictive animal drugs to humans; (2) that, as such, the Company is vulnerable to potential civil or criminal liability, as well as other regulatory action; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Google may halt the Company’s advertising activities; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about PetMed’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 24, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1199.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action settlements annually obtained for investors.

/EIN News/ — Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com

EQUITY ALERT: Rosen Law Firm Announces Filing of Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Top Ships Inc. – TOPS

NEW YORK, Sept. 20, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Top Ships Inc. (NASDAQ:TOPS) from January 17, 2017 through August 22, 2017, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Top Ships investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Top Ships class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1201.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The complaint alleges that through his control of Top Ships, the Company’s CEO, Evangelos J. Pistiolis (“Pistiolis”), caused Top Ships to engage in a series of manipulative share issuance/sales transactions with Kalani Investments Limited (“Kalani”) through which Top Ships would sell its common shares and securities convertible into common shares to Kalani at a significant discount to market price and file registration statements so that Kalani could resell these shares into the market. When Kalani’s sales of Top Ships stock caused the price of Top Ships stock to decline, the Company would reverse split the stock, causing a certain number of outstanding shares to be merged into a single share, and thereby raise the price of Top Ships stock. Then, Top Ships would again sell securities to Kalani and the same pattern of transactions would ensue. At the same time that Top Ships was engaging in these transactions, defendants failed to disclose the true purpose of the transactions and related stock issuances and reverses – to finance related-party transactions and acquisitions that primarily benefited Pistiolis and his related companies, and otherwise funnel money to Company insiders. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 23, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1201.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action settlements annually obtained for investors.

/EIN News/ — Contact Information:
      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Kevin Chan, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY  10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      kchan@rosenlegal.com
      www.rosenlegal.com

The Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Commencement of a Class Action Filed on Behalf of Depomed, Inc. Shareholders and a Lead Plaintiff Deadline of October 17, 2017 (DEPO)

NEW YORK, Sept. 20, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Depomed, Inc. (NASDAQ:DEPO) who purchased shares between February 26, 2015 and August 7, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Depomed engaged in questionable practices in connection with the sales and marketing of the Company’s opioid products; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, would likely subject the Company to heightened legal and regulatory scrutiny; and (iii) as a result, Depomed’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 7, 2017, post-market, Depomed disclosed that the Company “received a request for information from the ranking minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs related to the promotion of opioids” and that the Company had received “subpoenas related to opioid sales and marketing from the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland and the United States Department of Justice.”

Shareholders have until October 17, 2017 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sb/depomed-inc?wire=3.

Joseph Klein, Esq. is an experienced attorney and has also practiced as a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Klein represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Joseph Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com 

/EIN News/ —

Primary Logo

The Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of a Securities Action on Behalf of ZTO Express (Cayman), Inc. Shareholders and a Lead Plaintiff Deadline of October 16, 2017 (ZTO)

NEW YORK, Sept. 20, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Klein Law Firm announces that a securities complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of ZTO Express (Cayman), Inc. (NYSE:ZTO) who purchased shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s Stock Offering on or about October 27, 2016.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement used to conduct the IPO contained inaccurate statements and omitted material information. In particular, the complaint alleges that ZTO Express failed to disclose that: (1) it was improperly inflating its stated profit margins by keeping certain low-margin segments of its business out of its financial statements; (2) it used a system of “network partners” to handle lower-margin pickup and delivery services, while maintaining ownership of core hub operations; and (3) by keeping the “network partners” businesses off its own books, the Company allegedly was able to exaggerate its profit margins to investors.

If you suffered a loss in ZTO Express you have until October 16, 2017 to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you suffered a loss in ZTO Express and wish to obtain additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sbm/zto-express-cayman-inc.

Joseph Klein, Esq. is an experienced attorney and has also practiced as a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Klein represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Joseph Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com

/EIN News/ —

Primary Logo

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Announces Proposed Partial Class Action Settlement on Behalf of Purchasers of Common Stock of Montage Technology Group Limited — MONT

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 20, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has approved the following announcement of a summary notice of pendency and proposed partial settlement class action that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Montage Technology Group Limited (NASDAQ:MONT):

/EIN News/ — SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY GROUP LIMITED (“MONTAGE”) BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 TO FEBRUARY 6, 2014, INCLUSIVE, AND DID NOT SELL SUCH SECURITIES PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 6, 2014

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that a hearing will be held on December 15, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge of the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 1 – 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 (the “Settlement Hearing”): (1) to determine whether the Settlement, consisting of the sum of $7,250,000 (Seven Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) to finally determine whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) should be entered, dismissing the Complaint on the merits and with prejudice, and to determine whether the release by the Settlement Class of the Released Persons as set forth in the Stipulation, should be ordered, along with a permanent injunction barring efforts to bring any Released Claims extinguished by the Settlement against any Released Persons; (3) to finally determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court; (4) to consider the application of Class Counsel on behalf of themselves for an award of Attorneys’ Fees in an amount not to exceed one-third (33 1/3%) of the Gross Settlement Fund and an award of expenses of not more than $700,000 (for a total of no more than $3,116,666.66), and for an Award to Class Representatives Martin Graham and Plaintiff Shaun Shen (“Class Representatives”) of no more than $20,000 in total; (5) to consider Settlement Class Members’ objections, if any, to the Settlement, whether submitted previously in writing or presented orally at the Settlement Hearing by Settlement Class Members (or by counsel on their behalf); and (6) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

If you purchased Montage common stock between September 25, 2013 and Feburary 6, 2014, inclusive, and did not sell such securities prior to February 6, 2014, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Action.  If you have not received a copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Montage Technology Group Limited Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 230, 600 North Jackson Street – Suite 3, Media, PA 19063; by calling the Claims Administrator at 1-866-274-4004; or by visiting the Claims Administrator’s website at www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release no later than November 20, 2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery to the Claims Administrator.  Unless you submit a written Request for Exclusion, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release.  If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator, received no later than November 27, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Class Counsel’s request for an award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, or request for an Award to Class Representatives must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and received no later than November 27, 2017, to each of the following:

The Court 

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
 Northern District of California  
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Class Counsel

 The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.  
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
355 South Grand Avenue,
Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Defense Counsel 

O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Seth Aronson, Esq.
400 South Hope Street, 18th
Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Class Counsel:

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: info@rosenlegal.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: AUGUST 25, 2017

______________________________
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

Herman Law, P.A. Wins Tough Felony Jury Trial: Securing Six Month Sentence, No Felony Record for Client Facing 10 Years

West Palm Beach, FL (Law Firm Newswire) September 20, 20176 – Herman Law, P.A. is pleased to announced that the firm has saved one of our clients from a lengthy prison sentence in a recent jury trial.

Our client was arrested and charged with two third-degree felonies, each count punishable by up to 5 years in prison with a total exposure of 10 years in Florida state prison. The case involved charges of False Imprisonment and Felony Battery in connection with a dispute between our client and a former girlfriend.

The State of Florida was prosecuting the case to the fullest extent of the law and seeking a maximum prison sentence. During the two-day trial, the state called six witnesses. After a full and intense cross examination and a skilled presentation of evidence, attorney Ron Herman discredited the alleged victim, aggressively laying out the true facts and explaining to the jury what really happened and how no violent crime occurred.

“All the hard work and preparation paid off when the jury heard the defense case and our arguments, and the alleged victim’s fabricated version of events began to unravel” said Mr. Herman. “The defense team spent countless hours investigating the case, analyzing the evidence and lack of incriminating evidence, working with our client and his family, and skillfully and creatively presenting the defense case to the jury.”

After careful deliberations, the jury came back with a not guilty verdict on both felony counts. Although the client was found guilty of two misdemeanors, Herman Law P.A. never gave up and continued fighting for him all the way through the sentencing phase. Again, they prevailed and obtained a highly favorable sentence of only six (6) months in the County jail. Their unyielding and vigorous defense resulted in a significantly reduced sentence, shaving off more than 9 years from the 10 year maximum sentence he was facing, before Herman Law, P.A. got involved.

“The jury, rightfully so, rejected the version of the case the State attempted to present,” Herman said. “When someone is accused of a horrific crime, it is important to remember charges are just accusations and are not always true as the case here shows. Justice prevailed and our client was acquitted of the most serious felony charges.”


About the Firm

Herman Law, P.A. represents clients charged with criminal offenses in West Palm Beach and throughout all of South Florida. We have a proven track record of aggressively and successfully defending clients in even the most complex cases. We are dedicated advocates who fight to protect the freedom, reputation, and future of our clients. Our guiding principle is to treat each client as a top priority. Call our office today for more information or contact us through our website.

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , ,