Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Headline Legal News
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Molycorp, Inc. common stock during the period between March 9, 2011 and November 10, 2011.
For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mcp.
The complaint alleges that defendants’ false and misleading statements about the capability of the Company’s “Mountain Pass” mining operation and the Company’s earnings caused Molycorp common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts during the Class Period: (a) Molycorp’s development and expansion of the Mountain Pass mine was not progressing on schedule and would not allow the Company to reach rare earth oxide production rates at the end of calendar 2012 and 2013; and (b) end users had been reducing demand for the Company’s products as prices for rare earth elements increased.
On November 10, 2011, the Company reported disappointing third quarter 2011 revenues and earnings results below analysts’ estimates and announced a reduction in Mountain Pass production guidance for the fourth quarter of 2011 due to expected equipment downtime relating to Mountain Pass engineering and expansion issues. The Company’s stock price fell, dropping from $38.70 per share on November 10, 2011 to $33.45 per share on November 11, 2011, or 13.6%, on heavy trading volume.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 3, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
www.rmclasslaw.com.
Related listings
-
NY court decision bolsters anti-fracking movement
Headline Legal News 02/23/2012A New York court decision has bolstered a movement among towns determined to prevent the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas within their borders. A state Supreme Court justice on Tuesday upheld the town of Dryden's August ...
-
Court says police cannot be sued over warrant
Headline Legal News 02/22/2012The Supreme Court said Wednesday that California police officers cannot be sued because they used a warrant that may have been defective to search a woman's house. The high court threw out the lawsuit against Los Angeles County Sheriff's Detective Cu...
-
Cisco challenges Microsoft takeover of Skype in EU
Headline Legal News 02/15/2012Networking company Cisco said Wednesday that it is challenging Microsoft's $8.5 billion takeover of Skype at the European Union's top court to ensure Microsoft won't block other video conferencing services. Microsoft completed the deal in October sho...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.