Source: https://www.rosenlegal.com/successes.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:03:38+00:00

Document:
Hayes v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., No. 12-CV-1160-JST.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Class Counsel in this certified class action in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. The parties settled this action for $29.7 million in cash.
Beck v. Walter Investment Management, No. 14-cv-20880-UU.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties settled the action for $24 million in cash.
Deering v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00367-SI (Partial Settlement).
The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for District of Oregon. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing an undisclosed stock promotion scheme. The firm secured a partial settlement for $20 million consisting of $19 million in cash and $1 million in stock. The case continues against other defendants.
Yang v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 14-cv-3538.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus. Plaintiffs and the underwriters have agreed to settle their claims for $14 million proof of claim in bankruptcy court. Plaintiffs have also agreed to a $2.075 million settlement with Tibet’s auditor.
In re Silvercorp Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 12-CV-9456 (JSR).
The Rosen Law Firm was counsel to lead plaintiff in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $14 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the California Superior Court, San Francisco County alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of the assets of six related publicly traded limited partnerships. After winning the first phase of a multi-phase bench trial, Plaintiffs obtained a $10 million cash settlement for class members.
Hellum v. Prosper Marketplace, Inc., No. CGC-08-482329.
The Rosen Law Firm was class counsel in this certified class action in California Superior Court, San Francisco County alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the California Corporations Code in connection with defendants’ offer and sale of unregistered securities. Plaintiffs settled this action for $10 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel on behalf of purchasers of Quest Resource Corporation’s securities in this consolidated class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements in connection with the Company’s former CEO and CFO misappropriating nearly $10 million. All classes and parties to this litigation settled this action for $10.1 million in cash.
In re Puda Coal Securities Litigation, No. 11-CV-2598 (DLC) (Partial Settlement).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of revenue and earnings. The parties settled this action against the company and its auditor for a total of $8,685,000 in cash.
In re Montage Technology Group Ltd Securities Litigation, No. 3:2014-cv-0722 (SI).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false statements relating to certain undisclosed related party transactions and the Company’s revenue. The parties agreed to settle this action for $7.25 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $7 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s true financial condition and adequacy of the Company’s internal controls. Plaintiffs and the issuer defendants preliminarily agreed to a partial settlement of $4.3 million cash payment to class members. Plaintiffs and the underwriters agreed to a separate $1,893,750 cash payment to class members. The total settlement was $6,193,750 in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Class Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s materially false and misleading statements concerning its financial statements and business practices. Following the certification of the class and extensive discovery, Plaintiffs agreed to settle this case for $6 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out a financial restatement. The parties agreed to settle this case for $5.3 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s true financial and business condition. The parties agreed to settle this action for $5 million in cash.
Berry v. KIOR, Inc., No. 13-CV-2443.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties settled this action for $4.5 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was counsel to Plaintiff in this securities class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and Lead Counsel in the related class action brought in California state court against Entropin, Inc., a defunct pharmaceutical company. These actions alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and violations various state securities laws arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company’s lead drug candidate Esterom, respectively. On the eve of trial, Defendants agreed to settle these cases for a $4.5 million cash payment to class members.
Fitzpatrick v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., No. 13-CV-01649.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties settled this action for $4.5 million consisting of $2.35 million in cash and $2.15 million in stock.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of: (a) the Company’s issuance of materially false statements of revenues and earnings; and (b) the Company’s auditors’ issuance of materially false and misleading “clean” audit opinions. The parties settled this action for $4.2 million cash payment to class members.
In re IDreamSky Technology Limited Securities Litigation, No. 15-cv-2514 (JPO).
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act §§ 11 and 20(a) of the Securities Act and arising out of the issuance of misleading business information. The parties settled this case for $4.15 million in cash.
Snellink v. Universal Travel Group, Inc., Case No.11-CV-2164. The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s true financial condition. The parties settled this action for $4.075 million.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company’s $22.5 million initial public offering. The parties agreed to settle this action for $3,778,333.33 in cash.
In re IsoRay, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-cv-5046-LRD.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Washington. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company misstating certain study results relating to the Company’s products. The parties settled this action for $3,537,500 in cash.
of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising from the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s true financial condition. Plaintiffs settled their claims against Deer and its auditor through two settlements totaling $3.55 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. The parties settled this action for $3.5 million in cash.
Sood v. Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., No. 13-CV-23878-UU.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole lead counsel in this class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the Company failed to disclose material facts about its primary drug candidate. The parties agreed to settle this action for $3.5 million in cash.
The Rosen Law firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company’s failure to disclose material related party transactions in periodic reports it filed with the SEC. The parties settled this action for $2.65 million in cash. Separately, in the related case Omanoff v. Patrizio & Zhao LLC, No. 2:14-cv-723-FSH-JBC, The Rosen Law Firm was sole lead counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged that Patrizio & Zhao, LLC, as auditor for Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc., issued materially false and misleading audit opinions. The parties have settled this action for $850,000 in cash. The total recovery for Keyuan investors was $3.5 million.
The Rosen Law Firm served as sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b, 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading press releases regarding certain contracts the Company claimed to have signed. Plaintiffs settled this class action for $3.4 million cash payment to class members.
The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of revenues and earnings. During the pendency of the Company’s bankruptcy, the parties settled this class action for $3.4 million in cash.
Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., CV-3474-TJH.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false statements regarding the clinical testing of one its products. The parties settled this action for $3.4 million in cash.
Kelsey v. Textura Corporation, No. 14 C 7837.
Ding v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., No. 14-8020 (FLW).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties agreed to settle this case for $3.275 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-counsel to plaintiffs in this action brought in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County for violations of the California State securities laws against the securities issuer and broker-dealer in connection with the sale of $2.5 million worth of securities. On the eve of trial, plaintiffs settled the claims against the issuer for a cash payment of $1 million. Following an eight day jury trial, Plaintiffs obtained a jury verdict in their favor and against the underwriter for over $2.2 million (which included prejudgment interest). In sum, plaintiffs recovered over $3.2 million, which represented 100% of plaintiffs’ principal investment of $2.5 million and over $700,000 in prejudgment interest.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of earnings and the Company’s banking operations and business. The parties settled this action for $3.1 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of the §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of revenue and earnings. Plaintiffs settled this action for $3 million in cash.
Van Wingerden v. Cadiz, Inc., No. CV-15-3080-JAK-JEM.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties settled this action for $3 million in cash.
Pham v. China Finance Online Co. Limited, No. CV 15-CV-7894 (RMB).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties settled this action for $3 million in cash.
Abrams v. MiMedx Group, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-03074-TWT.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false statements relating the regulatory compliance of its products. The parties settled this action for $2.979 million.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s direct broadcast satellite agreement with DirecTV and the Company’s reported subscriber growth and totals. Plaintiffs settled this action for a $2.95 million cash payment to class members.
Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, No. 14-CV-6637 (FB) (SMG).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleged violation of §10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act out of the Company’s misstatements about its true financial condition and prospects. The parties settled this action for $2.868 million.
In re Lihua International, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 14-CV-5037 (RA).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The collective settlement of the class action and consolidated derivative actions are $2.865 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b, 20(a), 20A of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements by virtue of the Company improper recognition of revenues in violation of GAAP. Plaintiffs settled this action for a $2.85 million cash payment to class members.
Vaccaro v. New Source Energy Partners LP, No. 15-CV-8954 (KMW).
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties settled this action for $2.85 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm served as sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of § 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements in violation of GAAP. Plaintiffs settled this case for $2.75 million cash payment to class members.
alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s true financial condition. The parties agreed to settle this action for total consideration of $2.7 million, comprised of $700,000 in cash and $2 million in stock.
Moleski v. Tangoe, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00146.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties settled this action for $2.55 million in cash.
Nguyen v. Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation, No. CV11-0405-DOC (MLGx) The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s clinical trial involving its principal product. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.5 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the related California state court class actions. This action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the sale of partnership interests that corresponded to the securities of Chaparral Network Storage and AirPrime, Inc., n/.k/a Sierra Wireless, Inc. Plaintiffs settled this and the related state court actions for an aggregate $2.485 million cash payment to class members.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of revenue and earnings. The parties settled this action for $2.425 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act out of the Company’s failure to disclose material related party transactions that rendered the Company’s financial statements false. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.2 million in cash.
Tapia-Matos v. Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd., No. 15-CV-6726 (JMF).
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s true financial condition and business prospects. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.2 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the Company’s $35 million IPO. The parties settled this action for $2.15 million cash payment to class members.
The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising the issuance of false statements concerning the Company’s true financial condition. The parties agreed to a partial settlement for $2.125 million in cash. The case is ongoing against Deer’s auditor.
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s failure to disclose the related party nature of certain transactions, and the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.125 million in cash.
Crandall v. PTC Inc., No. 16-cv-10471-WGY.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and certain violations of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s true financial condition. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.1 million in cash.
In re DS Healthcare Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 16-60661-CIV-DIMITROULEAS.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $2.1 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and certain violations of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s true financial condition and business prospects. The parties settled this action for $2 million in cash.
Campton v. Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 12-CV-2196.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued for the company’s IPO. The parties agreed to the settle this action for $1.8 million in cash.
Pena v. iBio, Inc., 14-CV-1343-RGA.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out misstatements and omissions relating to the Company’s purported involvement with an Ebola treatment. The parties settled this action for $1.875 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued for the company’s IPO. The parties settled this action for $1.8 million in cash.
Petrie v. Electronic Game Card, Inc., No. SACV 10-0252-DOC (RNBx).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Following dismissal of the complaint by the district court, the Rosen Firm obtained a reversal of the dismissal from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the Company’s publicly stated internal policies. The parties settled this case for $1.755 million in cash.
Ford v. Natural Health Trends Corp., No. 16-00255 TJH (AFM).
The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $1.75 million in cash.
Hayden v. Wang, et al., No. Civ. 518333.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole lead counsel in this class action in the California Superior Court of San Mateo County brought on behalf of purchasers of Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing USA, Inc. common stock in two private placements. The Complaint alleged that the offering documents were materially false. The parties settled this action for $1,615,000 in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. This action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Arizona securities laws in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of earnings and revenues. During the pendency of the Company’s bankruptcy, Plaintiffs settled this action for $1.5 million in cash and a remainder interest of 50% of the issuer’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, brought in connection with a “going private” transaction valued at $1.25/share for the 6.4 million shares implicated in the transaction. The parties settled this action for $1,642,500 in additional compensation to shareholders.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties agreed to settle this action for $1.55 million in cash.
to a purported distribution agreement with a major information technology provider. The parties agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million.
Pankowski v. BlueNRGY Group Ltd, f/k/a CBD Energy Ltd., No. 4:15-cv-1668.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleged violations Securities Act and Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false financial statements. The parties agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million in cash.
Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., No. 10-728-SLR.
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. Plaintiffs settled this action for $1.5 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s materially false and misleading statements concerning its PolyHeme blood substitute product and business prospects. Following extensive class discovery and litigation activity in bankruptcy court, the parties agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The action arose from a $45.5 million initial public offering of common stock by the defendant issuer and a syndicate of underwriters including Roth Capital Partners and PMG Capital Corp. Plaintiffs settled this action for $1.5 million cash settlement for class members.
Guimetla v. Ambow Education Holding Ltd., No. CV-12-5062-PSG (AJWx).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million.
agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million in cash.
This class action in which the Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The action alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act based on misrepresentations in defendants’ SEC filings and press releases concerning the clinical testing of the Company’s GEDA Plus microbicide gel. After the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, the parties briefed the issue of whether the securities were traded in an efficient market. Prior to a decision on market efficiency, Plaintiffs settled the case for a $1.4 million payment to class members.
Balon v. Agria, Inc., No. 16-8376 (SDW).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged violation of §10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act out of the Company’s manipulation of its stock price. The parties settled this case for $1.3 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s IPO. Plaintiffs agreed to settle this case for $1.2 million cash payment to class members.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The action alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the defendants alleged failure to disclose material adverse information concerning the Company’s products under development and misrepresenting the amount of time it would take to commercialize the products. Plaintiffs settled the case for a $1.2 million cash payment to class members.
This class action, in which the Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel, was filed in U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act based on allegedly false and misleading SEC filings related to the planned launch of an online brokerage business, and other material misrepresentations, which allegedly inflated the price of Meyerson stock during the class period. Plaintiffs settled the case for a $1.2 million payment to class members.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of a market manipulation scheme involving National Lampoon’s common stock. The parties agreed to settle this action for $1 million in cash.
Garcia v. Lentuo International, Inc., CV-15-1862-MWF (MRWx).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of the Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties settled this action for $1 million in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel for this action brought in the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising from a $75.0 million initial public offering of common stock by the defendant issuer and a syndicate of underwriters including JP Morgan and Robertson Stephens, Inc. The Court certified the action as a class action and approved a final settlement.
The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action brought in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. The action arose from a $12.8 million initial public offering of securities by the defendant issuer and underwriter. California and federal securities laws claims (Cal. Corp. Code §25401 and §11 of 1933 Act) were brought on behalf of a nationwide class of public offering investors. The Court approved a $1.0 million cash settlement to a nationwide class of investors.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with material misrepresentations in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued for the Company’s public offering of common stock and warrants. The parties have agreed to settle this action for $850,000 in cash.
for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company concealing its true financial condition. The parties settled this action for $975,000 in cash.
The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. Following entry of default against the issuer and certification of the class, the non-issuer defendants and Plaintiffs have preliminarily agreed to resolve the claims against the non-issuer defendants for $778,333.33, subject to court approval.
The Rosen Law Firm was lead counsel to a group of twenty-one plaintiffs that brought claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation in California Superior Court, Orange County against the former Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers of a publicly traded software company, NQL Inc. The complaint alleged that the officers issued a series of false and misleading press releases concerning the business of NQL for the purpose of inducing the purchase and retention of NQL securities. Plaintiffs settled the action favorably for a confidential amount.
In re China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 2:11-CV-02768 PSG (SSx).
financial statements. The parties agreed to partially settle this action for $631,600 in cash. A default judgment was obtained against the issuer.
The Rosen Law Firm was plaintiff’s counsel for this action filed in California Superior Court, San Diego County which arose from the aborted merger agreement and ultimate sale of The BoxLot Company’s assets to InfoSpace. The action alleged violations of California securities laws (Cal. Corp. Code §25400 & §25401) and common laws and sought damages of $92.8 million from InfoSpace and its CEO, Naveen Jain. The case settled favorably for plaintiffs for a confidential amount.
Scalfani v. Misonix Inc., No. 16-cv-5215 (ADS) (AKT).
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false financial statements. The parties have settled this action for $500,000 in cash—resulting in a recovery of nearly 100% of damages.
The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements and business condition. The parties settled this action for $450,000.
The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s material misstatements and omissions concerning the nature of certain sales contracts it had entered into. Plaintiffs have preliminarily agreed to settle this action this action for $425,000 cash payment to class members.
In re Forcefield Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-cv-3020 (NRB).
The Rosen Law Firm was Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading information. The parties agreed to settle this case for $414,500.
The Rosen Law Firm served as sole Lead Counsel in this class action filed in Utah state court alleged violations of the Utah Securities Act against Paradigm Medical arising out of false and misleading statements made to investors in a $5.0 million private placement of securities. The court approved a $625,000 settlement on behalf of the private placement purchasers.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §10
 v. 
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §10
 v. 
 §25401
 §11
 §10
 §25400
 §25401
 v.