Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit

The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. between August 27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that OmniVision and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by concealing the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple. On August 25, 2011 OmniVision disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-megapixel product line. As a result, OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new iPhone 4S, released on October 14, 2011. In response to this news, OmniVision stock declined $7.55 per share, over 30%, to close at $17.27 on August 26, 2011. On October 14, 2011, when the iPhone 4S was released, experts examined the phone's camera and determined that Sony, not Omnivision, had supplied a key component. On this confirmation of the reduced role of the Company's components in the iPhone 4S, OmniVision stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3%, to close at $15.95 per share.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 27, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.

While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/omnivision/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com.

US House group files motion in gay marriage suit

Gays and lesbians are not entitled to the same heightened legal protection and scrutiny against discrimination as racial minorities and women in part because they are far from politically powerless and have ample ability to influence lawmakers, lawyers for a U.S. House of Representatives group said in a federal court filing.

The filing Friday in San Francisco's U.S. District Court comes in a lesbian federal employee's lawsuit that claims the government wrongly denied health insurance coverage to her same-sex spouse. Karen Golinski says the law under which her spouse was denied benefits — the Defense of Marriage Act — violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

But attorneys representing the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group counter that DOMA is subject to a lower level of court scrutiny because gays and lesbians don't meet the legal criteria for groups who receive heightened protection from discrimination. Under that lower standard, DOMA is constitutional, they argue.

Court says Microsoft must pay in patent case

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Microsoft Corp. must pay a $290 million judgment awarded to a small Toronto software company for infringing on one of its patents inside its popular Microsoft Word program.

The high court unanimously refused to throw out the judgment against the world's largest software maker.

Toronto-based i4i sued Microsoft in 2007, saying it owned the technology behind a tool used in Microsoft Word. The technology in question gave Word 2003 and Word 2007 users an improved way to edit XML, which is computer code that tells the program how to interpret and display a document's contents.

The lower courts say Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft willfully infringed on the patent, and ordered the world's largest software maker to pay i4i $290 million and stop selling versions of Word containing the infringing technology.

Microsoft wanted the multimillion dollar judgment against it erased because it claims a judge used the wrong standard in instructing the jury that came up with the award.

The software company said a jury should determine a patent's validity by a "preponderance" of the evidence instead of the more heightened "clear and convincing" evidence standard instructed by the judge.

The Supreme Court said the "clear and convincing" standard was the correct one.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the court's opinion, said the courts have interpreted the law the same way for 30 years. During this period, Congress has often amended the patent law, she said.

Supreme Court to hear another arbitration argument

The Supreme Court will consider a plea from companies that cater to people with bad credit to keep disputes with their customers out of court and in the more business-friendly forum of arbitration.

Days after handing businesses a huge victory by limiting class action claims against them, the court said Monday it will take up a new arbitration dispute in the fall.

The new case involves consumer complaints about companies that issue low-rate credit cards to people with bad credit ratings. The consumers said they were promised an initial $300 in available credit, but were charged $257 in fees in the first year they had the credit card.

The consumers sued in federal court, but the companies say the dispute must be handled by an arbitrator, under an agreement the customers signed to receive the card.

The federal Credit Repair Organizations Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, says consumers have a right to sue, which the federal appeals court in San Francisco interpreted as a right to go into court, rather than be forced to submit to arbitration. Appeals courts in Atlanta and Philadelphia have ruled otherwise in evaluating the same language in the law.

Firm hired by GOP ends work on gay marriage ban

A prominent law firm hired by Republican lawmakers to defend the federal ban on gay marriage said Monday it was withdrawing from the case amid criticism by advocacy groups, prompting the partner leading the work to quit.

The move by Atlanta-based King & Spalding is the latest flashpoint in the public debate over gay rights. Chairman Robert Hays Jr. said the firm chose to divorce itself from the controversy after determining that the decision to take the case wasn't vetted properly, but gay rights groups had also been pressuring the 800-lawyer company with plans for a protest Tuesday in Atlanta and with calls to its other clients. The groups cheered the move.

The decision, however, was sharply criticized by conservative groups, legal observers and the partner who had been handling the case, a former high-ranking Justice Department official under President George W. Bush. Washington-based attorney Paul Clement said he's moving to another law office so he can continue the work.

Clement had been retained by House Republican leaders after President Barack Obama ordered the Justice Department in February to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. His administration said it believes the 1996 law, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, was unconstitutional.

Subcategories

© Legal Suntimes - All Rights Reserved.

 

Professional Law firm website designs. Find the best legal web designers here and at legal websites.