Managing Partner


  Laurence Rosen, Esq.

  350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
  New York, NY 10118

  Tel: (212) 686-1060
  Fax: (212) 202-3827
  lrosen@rosenlegal.com
  www.rosenlegal.com

    Report Fraud

reportfraud@rosenlegal.com
If you have information regarding securities fraud please let us know.
 

© 2005, The Rosen Law Firm P.A.,

    A Professional Services Corporation.
 

Recent Accomplishments of The Rosen Law Firm

In re Textainer Financial Servs. Corp., No. CGC 05-440303.  The Rosen Law Firm is Co-Lead Counsel in this class action pending 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, pending final court approval.

In re Entropin, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 04-6180-RC.  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.  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 cash payment of up to $4.5 million cash payment to class members.

In re StockerYale, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-00177.  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.

Madden v. Pegasus Communications Corp, Case No. 2:05-cv-0568.  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.

In re TVIA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-06-06403-RMW.  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.

Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp., et al., Case No. 3:06-CV-1654-D.  The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as sole Lead Counsel in this class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The complaint alleges 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 have preliminarily agreed to settle this case for $2.75 million cash payment to class members.

In re Robert T. Harvey Securities Litigation, Case No. SA CV-04-0876 DOC (PJWx). 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.

In re PartsBase.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-8319.  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.

In re Empyrean Bioscience Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02CV1439.  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.

In re Himax Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C 07-4891-DDP.  The Rosen Law Firm is currently serving as Co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.  The complaint alleges violations of §§ 11 and 15 of the Securities Act arising out of the Company’s IPO.  Plaintiffs have preliminarily agreed to settle this case for $1.2 million cash payment to class members.

In re Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-1175.  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.

In re: M.H. Meyerson & Co. Securities Litigation, Case No.  02-CV-2724.  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.

In re OPUS360 Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-Civ-2938.  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.  

Fouladian v. Busybox.com, Inc., Case No. BC 248048. 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. 

Gianoukas v. Tullio and Riiska, Case No. 02CC18223.  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.

The BoxLot Company v. InfoSpace, Inc., Case No. GIC 779231.  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.

Huttenstine v. Mast, Case No. 4:05-cv-152 F(3).  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.

Kinzinger v. Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc., Case No. 03-0922608.  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.