Shareholders of the Koss Corporation (NASDAQ: KOSS) have filed a securities class action lawsuit against the Company in Wisconsin federal court.  The shareholder lawsuit seeks to recover stock losses for shareholders who purchased Koss stock between July 12, 2005 and December 21, 2009.

The shareholder class action lawsuit claims Koss and its corporate executives issued false and misleading statements concerning the company’s financial performance while corporate funds were diverted and used for improper purposes for more than four years. On December 21, 2009, NASDAQ halted trading in Koss Corporation stock at the company’s request. Koss then disclosed to investors for the first time certain executives of the company had engaged in unauthorized transactions, stealing millions of dollars from the corporate accounts for more than four years.

Koss stated the company was undertaking an internal investigation into the matter.  On January 11, 2010 trading resumed in Koss stock. The company’s shares promptly loss more than 24% in value on heavy trading.

The class action lawsuit alleges shareholders purchased artificially inflated shares of Koss stock between July 12, 2005 and December 21, 2009 because Koss and its executives failed to disclose the following material facts to shareholders:

• Company executives had stolen millions of dollars in corporate funds
• The company’s financial statements and bank accounts were manipulated to cover up the theft
• Koss’ financial results were drastically overstated
• Koss’ financial results violated generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)
• The company lacked basic internal controls to detect the theft of corporate funds

If you own Koss Corporation stock and wish to learn about your rights or how to participate in the class action, please fill out the following form:

Current shareholders of Insight Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: NSIT), who have owned Insight stock since January 2002, may be able to assert claims against Insight’s management for fraud, abuse and corporate waste. Insight’s management is charged with abuse arising from  two earnings restatements, multiple SEC investigations, a $70 million options backdating scandal, illicit executive compensation, and security class action lawsuits.

Shareholders accuse Insight’s directors and senior executives of breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of Insight’s corporate assets, and abuse of their control of Insight, including gross mismanagement and unjust enrichment. Among other things, stockholders allege Insight’s directors failed to recover $30+ million in executive compensation improperly paid by Insight from 1995 and 2005, causing Insight to overstate its publicly-reported earnings during its entire history as a publicly-traded company.

Shareholders allege executive and employee stock option grants were improperly “backdated,” resulting in Insight spending more than $15 million in professional fees to restate its 1995-2005 earnings in 2006, and to defend an SEC investigation.

Shareholders also allege Insight engaged in accounting fraud. Insight executives accomplished the fraud by improperly withholding customer refunds and supplier invoice payments. These misreported refunds and payments were illegally reported as “profits” in Insight’s publicly-disseminated financial reports from 1996 to 2008, resulting in the overpayment of over $40 million in excessive executive compensation.

Insight CEO Rich Fennessy at NASDAQ's opening bell.

Insight would again post a $60+ million restatement reported in February 2009, exposing Insight to another SEC investigation and hundreds of millions of dollars in potential liability in several stock fraud class actions. Insight was forced to admit its directors and senior executives operated Insight without adequate internal controls, and admitted the accounting irregularities were intentional.

Shareholders further allege Insight paid over $70 million in improper excessive compensation. This compensation was wrongly justified by tens of millions of dollars in earnings being falsely reported. Insight’s directors made no effort to recover the illicit compensation payouts, nor have they tried to recover the tens of millions of dollars in professional fees Insight has spent twice restating its financial results, as well as defending two SEC investigations and defending multiple shareholder class actions.

If you are an Insight Enterprises (NSIT) stockholder, and have owned Insight stock since January 2002 and wish to learn about your rights, or wish to participate in litigation against Insight, please fill out the following form:

Thousands of consumers are complaining Dell manufactured and sold notebooks and laptops which overheat, causing the Dell notebook computers to “throttle down” their performance as much as 95%. The downward throttling renders the machines unusable. News reports have called the problem “Throttlegate.”

Consumers also complain the Dell Notebooks may fail to perform at even 50% of the notebooks’ advertised processing speed, or “clock speed. Thousands of consumers have complained publicly to Dell about their defective Dell Notebooks. Instead of issuing a recall, Dell issued ineffective “BIOS updates” which failed to cure the defect. Dell continues to manufacture, market and sell the defective laptops and notebooks, even after numerous consumer complaints about the “Throttlegate” overheating issue.

The affected notebooks include:

• Latitude E4200
• Latitude E4300
• Latitude E5400
• Latitude E5500
• Latitude E6400
• Latitude E6400 ATG
• Latitude E6400 XFR
• Latitude E6500
• Inspiron 1501
• Inspiron E1505
• Inspiron 1525
• Inspiron 6400
• Precision M2400
• Precision M4400
• Precision M6400
• Alienware m15x
• Studio XPS 1645

For more information, to learn about your rights, or to participate in litigation against Dell due to your defective laptop or notebook computer, please fill out the following form:

Toyota issued multiple worldwide recalls involving millions of its best-known cars, in a belated acknowledgement of serious manufacturing defects and quality control failures. The value of Toyota’s cars has been damaged.

Toyota’s cars face several serious problems. In January 2010 Toyota recalled 2.3 million vehicles for sticking accelerator pedals. A defect in the pedal’s friction device caused the Toyota accelerator pedal to stick. The Toyota accelerator pedal may become harder to depress, slower to return to the idle position, or get stuck in a partially depressed position.

The January 2010 recall comes on the heels of a November 2009 recall, in which Toyota recalled 3.8 million vehicles for having floor mats capable of jamming Toyota accelerator pedals in a wide open, or open throttle, position. A stuck open accelerator pedal resulted in dangerously high car speeds. On many occasions consumers had great difficulty stopping the car, resulting in crashes, serious injuries, and deaths.

More recently, in February 2010 Toyota recalled approximately 133,000 model year 2010 Priuses for braking difficulties. Consumers allege their Priuses lurch when traveling over potholes or bumps. Consumers further allege temporary losses in Prius braking power. In addition, Toyota Prius owners have complained about unintended acceleration or loss of braking power on normal surfaces. In this third recall, Toyota has said the Prius software controlling the braking engages in a longer delay than previous versions. Notably, older Prius owners also have complained about braking difficulties. Consumers allege Toyota’s limited recall of 2010 Priuses wrongfully excludes older Prius models with the same defect.

Loose Toyota floor mat jams accelerator pedal

By issuing recall after recall, Toyota has harmed millions of Toyota consumers. Many owners purchased Toyota products based on the mistaken belief that Toyota produced quality-driven, reliable and safe products. The recent recall wave affects the entire Toyota product line:  eleven models have been identified with serious safety problems. The vast number of vehicles affected, totaling millions of units, together with the multiple recalls worldwide, has generated serious and unprecedented concern in the safety of Toyota’s cars.

Consumers are rightly concerned whether Toyota can recover its image as a top-name auto manufacturer. Troublingly, Toyota was aware of consumer complaints about the accelerators and brakes for years, but did nothing to fix the problem. Toyota’s disregard for consumer safety has resulted in millions of consumers facing a substantial diminution in the value of their cars.

Toyota vehicles affected by the recalls include:

• Avalon (2005 – 2010)
• Camry (2007 – 2010)
• Corolla (2009 – 2010)
• Highlander (2008 – 2010)
• Matrix (2009 – 2010)
• Prius (2004 – 2010)
• RAV4 (2009 – 2010)
• Sequoia (2008 – 2010)
• Tacoma (2005 – 2010)
• Tundra (2007 – 2010)
• VENZA (2009 – 2010)

For more information, to learn about your rights, or to participate in litigation against Toyota for diminution in value to your Toyota vehicle, please fill out the following form:

AMICAS Inc. (NasdaqGM: AMCS) shareholders are investigating an allegedly unfair takeover by Thomas Bravo LLC which undervalues AMICAS.

On December 28, 2009, AMICAS, Inc. (“AMICAS” or the “Company”) and its board of directors publicly announced they agreed to sell AMICAS to Thomas Bravo LLC. According to the transaction’s terms, AMICAS shareholders will receive $5.35 in cash for each common share of AMICAS stock they own. The AMICAS takeover transaction is valued at $217 million.

AMICAS shareholders claim this offer is insufficient. AMICAS shareholders complain the transaction is below a $6.00 per share price target set by analysts. In the third quarter of 2009, AMICAS reported gross profit of $13 million and net income of $1.6 million, wheareas in the prior quarter AMICAS reported gross profit and a net loss of $10 million and $6.5 million.

Shareholders are investigating whether the AMICAS board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to AMICAS stockholders by failing to solicit alternative or superior proposals for AMICAS before entering into the Thomas Bravo transaction. Shareholders also are investigating whether Thomas Bravo is paying too little to acquire AMICAS. The AMICAS transaction provides only a minimal premium over AMICAS’s share price before the December 28, 2009 Thomas Bravo transaction was announced.

If you have questions about this lawsuit, want to discuss your legal rights or you wish to join this class action, please fill out the form below or call 1-877-573-0007 for a free consultation.
[contact-form]

Consumers allege Liberty Life Assurance Company illegally defrauded them out of their Social Security and workerss compensation benefits. Liberty Life demands people sign agreements, placing liens on their Social Security and workers’ compensation benefits. Consumers allege this conduct is illegal, because Social Security and worker compensation benefits are protected under federal and state law and may not be assigned.

The class action lawsuit accuses Liberty Life of preying on the elderly and unsophisticated. Consumers allege Liberty Life retains lawyers who assist Liberty Life in defrauding policyholders out of their Social Security and workers’ compensation benefits. The lawyers allegedly are conflicted, and fail to act in policyholders’ best interests.

The class action lawsuit seeks to be certified as a class action on behalf of policyholders against Liberty Life Assurance Company and their lawyers. The class action suit alleges violations of the Social Security Act, Workers’ Compensation Act, fraud, deceit, conspiracy, and breach of contract.

To get more information about the Liberty Life Assurance class action, to discuss your rights concerning Social Security or Worker’s Compensation, or to join this class action, please fill out the following form:

The class action lawsuit alleges Principal Financial Group and Principal Life Insurance Company shortchanged and failed to fully reimburse consumers and providers for out-of-network health care costs.

Principal shortchanged and underpaid consumers by using a database owned and operated by Ingenix, Inc. The Ingenix database purportedly is used to help Principal determine the “usual, customary, and reasonable,” or “UCR,” rate for out-of-network health care services. But the Ingenix database is flawed and hurts consumers by artificially lowering out-of-network reimbursement rates.

In the class action plaintiffs allege Principal Financial Group and Principal Life Insurance Company used Ingenix’s flawed claims database to improperly lower reimbursement rates for out-of-network claims. The lawsuit alleges Principal knew the Ingenix data was improperly altered, is incomplete, and is skewed to hurt consumers and health care providers.

The class action alleges Principal knew the flawed data should not have been used to set reimbursement rates and alleges Principal’s out-of-network reimbursements were well-below local prevailing health care rates.

To get more information, to discuss your rights, or to join this class action, please fill out the following form:

Investors filed a class action lawsuit against Psychiatric Solutions (Nasdaq: PSYS) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of shareholders who bought Psychiatric Solutions’ stock between February 21, 2008 and February 25, 2009. The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Nashville, Tennessee.

The lawsuit alleges Psychiatric Solutions and certain of its officers and directors concealed material information from shareholders about the company’s: (1) failure to provide patient safeguards and controls at its Riveredge facility; (2) failure to implement corrective measures and comply with government regulations; and (3) failure to comply with accounting regulations and issuance of false financials.

On February 25, 2009, Psychiatric Solutions disclosed ongoing safety and compliance problems at its Riveredge facility had caused the company to underperform and miss 2008 financial guidance. In response to this news, Psychiatric Solutions’ stock dropped 35% in a single day to close at $17.50 per share.

The lawsuit charges Psychiatric Solutions and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws and seeks to recover damages for all investors who purchased Psychiatric Solutions stock between February 21, 2008 and February 25, 2009.

If you have questions about this lawsuit, want to discuss your legal rights or you wish to join this class action, please fill out the form below or call 1-877-573-0007 for a free consultation.
[contact-form]

Consumers allege Honeywell air cleaners cause indoor ozone pollution, poor air quality and threaten their health. Honeywell’s F300 Electronic Air Cleaner is allegedly linked to markedly increased levels of ozone production than listed in Honeywell’s user guide.

Honeywell’s F300 allegedly produces toxic amounts of indoor ozone, which pools in high concentrations near vents. The indoor ozone contaminates indoor air, leads to toxic chemical reactions with other products in the home, and ultimately results in health problems.

According to published Consumer Reports findings, the Honeywell F300 generates “whole house” concentrations of ozone between 25 and 50 parts per billion, which is far higher than reported by Honeywell. This figure is between two and ten times higher than the amount of ozone Honeywell discloses in its Product Data Sheet. Consumer Reports recommends consumers purchase a “whole house” filtered air cleaner, instead of “electrostatic precipitator” models like the Honeywell F300.

Consumers allege Honeywell’s statements about its F300 air cleaner’s ozone gas production were false and misleading, and they allege Honeywell’s statements concerning the health benefits of its air cleaners also are false and misleading, since the air cleaner results in toxic indoor ozone that adversely impacts user’s health.

For more information, to learn about your rights, or to participate in litigation against Honeywell for its ozone-polluting air cleaners, please fill out the following form:

Consumers are taking action against alleged antitrust violations by optical disc drive manufacturers. Consumers may have overpaid for disc drives used in personal computers or drives in common items such as CD, DVD, and Blue-ray DVD disc drives and devices. Manufactures allegedly manipulated optical disc drive prices in the United States, causing consumers to pay higher prices for optical disc drives than they otherwise would have paid in an open, competitive market.

The United States Department of Justice recently acknowledged it was commencing an investigation into anticompetitive practices in the optical disc drive industry. The optical disc drive subsidiaries of Sony, Hitachi, and Toshiba have received subpoenas from the Justice Department.

If you have directly purchased an optical disc drive, or a product containing an optical disc drive directly from Sony Corp., Sony Optiarc Inc., Sony Optiarc America Inc., Toshiba Corp., Samsung Electronics Co., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Hitachi, Ltd., LG Corp., Hiachi-LG Data Storage Inc., or NEC Corp., you may have the right to seek compensation for sums you overpaid when buying an optical disc drive.

For more information, to learn about your rights, or to participate in litigation against optical disc drive manufacturers for overcharging consumers, please fill out the following form: