The Rosen Law Firm Announces a Shareholder Class Action
Class Action News
The Rosen Law Firm today announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P ("SemGroup" of "Company") (Nasdaq:SGLP) securities during the period from February 20, 2008 through July 17, 2008, including purchasers of SemGroup units sold through the Company's February 13, 2008 secondary offering (the "Class Period").
To join the SemGroup class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@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.
The complaint asserts that the Company's parent was at high risk for financial problems due to its investment in risky crude oil hedge transactions during the Class Period. The complaint also asserts that the Company was engaged in improper self-dealing transactions with its parent in an effort to support the Company's parent. On July 17, 2008 it was revealed that the Company's parent filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code due to lack of available funds. As a result of these adverse disclosures the complaint asserts that SemGroup's investors were damaged.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of SemGroup shareholders. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 19, 2008. If you wish to join the litigation or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, focusing its practice in securities class actions.
More information on this and other class actions can be found on the Class Action Newsline at www.primenewswire.com/ca.
Related listings
-
Dell hit by class action over unpaid overtime
Class Action News 07/18/2008A federal judge has granted class-action status for a lawsuit over wages filed by two former Dell Inc. customer service employees in Roseburg.The order signed July 10 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin in Eugene covers Dell customer service emplo...
-
Merck says appeals court overturns Vioxx verdict
Class Action News 05/16/2008A Texas appeals court on Wednesday overturned a multimillion-dollar verdict against Merck & Co. in one of the few trials it lost over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx.A jury in Rio Grande City, Texas, in April 2006 awarded $32 million to the widow ...
-
Brodsky & Smith, LLC Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action News 05/14/2008Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Cbeyond, Inc. ("Cbeyond" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CBEY) between November 1, 2007 and February 21...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.