Successes

Snellink v. Gulf Resources, Inc., No.CV11-3722-ODW (MRWx)

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.

Miller v. Global Geophysical Services, No. 14-CV-708

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.

Allen v. Pixarbio Corp., No. 2:17-cv-496-CCC-SM

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 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 case for $750,000 in cash.

In re Fuwei Films Securities Litigation, No. 07-CV-9416 (RJS)

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.

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 settled this action for $1.8 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.

Checkman v. Allegiant Travel Co., No. 18-cv-1758-APG-BNW

The Rosen Law Firm was sole lead counsel in this class action in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. 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 settled this action for $4 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.

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.

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.
Scroll to Top