The Shuman Law Firm Announces Class Action
Class Action News
The Shuman Law Firm today announced that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Molycorp, Inc. between March 9, 2011 and November 10, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.
The complaint alleges that Molycorp and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that the 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 from $38.70 per share on November 10, 2011 to $33.45 per share on November 11, 2011, or approximately 13.6%.
If you purchased Molycorp common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class no later than April 3, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in investor rights litigation.
Related listings
-
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Class Action News 02/10/2012Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. between...
-
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action News 02/09/2012Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the American Depositary Shares of China Medical Tec...
-
Labaton Sucharow LLP Secures $10 Million Settlement
Class Action News 02/08/2012Labaton Sucharow LLP announced a nationwide class action settlement valued at $10 million with All Market, Inc., the leading manufacturer and seller of coconut water in the United States. Coconut water is one of the fastest growing beverages sold in ...
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.