Feb 6, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
A10 Networks January 2018 Stock Price Drops – Securities Claims Investigation on Behalf of ATEN Shareholders
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of purchasers of the securities of A10 Networks, Inc. (NYSE:ATEN), “a Secure Application Services™ company,” resulting from allegations that A10 Networks may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.
On January 16, 2018, A10 Networks announced it expected fourth quarter 2017 revenue to be between $55.5 million and $56 million, which was below its prior guidance of $64 million to $67 million.
On this news, shares of A10 Networks fell $0.99, or more than 13% from its previous closing price, to close at $6.32 per share on January 17, 2018.
Subsequently, on January 30, 2018, A10 Networks disclosed that its Audit Committee was investigating ATEN’s revenue recognition practices from the fourth quarter of 2015 through the fourth quarter of 2017.
Specifically, ATEN’s January 30, 2018 press release stated that A10 Networks
. . . is postponing its 2017 fourth quarter and full year earnings announcement and conference call, originally scheduled for Feb. 8, 2018.
In the fourth quarter of 2017, [A10 Networks] determined that a mid-level employee within its finance department had violated [A10 Networks’s] Insider Trading Policy and Code of Conduct. As a result, [A10 Networks], with the assistance of outside counsel, conducted an email review and additional procedures to ensure the accuracy of its reporting of financial information for 2017. Such review and procedures did not identify matters that required material adjustments to be made. Nonetheless, [A10 Networks’s] Audit Committee determined that further review and procedures relating to certain accounting and internal control matters should be undertaken. The Audit Committee’s investigation, which is being conducted with the assistance of outside counsel, is principally focused on certain revenue recognition matters from the fourth quarter of 2015 through the fourth quarter of 2017 inclusive.
The investigation is in its early stages. [A10 Networks] is not able to provide a date as to when it will be completed, nor provide any assurance that [A10 Networks] will not determine that material adjustments to its past financial statements are appropriate.
At the conclusion of the Audit Committee’s investigation, [A10 Networks] will announce the scheduling of a conference call to discuss full financial results for the 2017 fourth quarter and full year.
On this news, shares of A10 Networks fell $0.86, or more than 12% from its previous closing price, to close at $6.13 per share on January 31, 2018.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
ATEN – A10 Networks Shareholders
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, ATEN shares and have questions or concerns about the investigation or your potential legal rights or claims, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Feb 6, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Overtime Wages Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Mortgage Lenders of America Team Leads, Team Leaders, Loan Officers, Mortgage Loan Officers, and Entry Level Loan Officers
A Fair Labor Standards Act collective and Rule 23 class action lawsuit was filed on February 5, 2018 in United States District Court, District of Kansas, Kansas City Division, against Kansas-based Mortgage Lenders of America, L.L.C. for allegedly misclassifying workers, failing to pay minimum wage for hours worked, and failing to pay overtime for all hours worked over 40 per week.
The lawsuit’s Team Lead collective class consists of Mortgage Lenders of America Team Leads, Team Leaders, and others with similar job titles, in the United States within the past three years who were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime compensation for hours worked beyond 40 per work week.
The lawsuit’s Loan Officer collective class consists of Mortgage Lenders of America Loan Officers, Mortgage Loan Officers, Entry Level Loan Officers, and others with similar job titles who originated loan products, in the United States at any time during the last three years who were classified as non-exempt, hourly employees who worked more than 40 hours per week without payment for all minimum wage and/or overtime compensation.
The members of the lawsuit’s Loan Officer Rule 23 class consists of individuals employed by Mortgage Lenders of America as Loan Officers, Mortgage Loan Officers, Entry Level Loan Officers, and other mortgage origination employees with similar job titles within the past three years in the State of Kansas who were denied minimum wage and/or overtime compensation.
According to the complaint:
[Mortgage Lenders of America’s] policy and practice is to deny earned wages including minimum wage and/or overtime pay to its Loan Officers. In particular, [Mortgage Lenders of America] requires these employees to perform work in excess of forty (40) hours per week but fails to pay them minimum wages and/or overtime for all hours worked.
[Mortgage Lenders of America’s] deliberate illegal treatment of its Team Leads and Loan Officers, which denies them minimum wage and/or overtime compensation results in MLOA willfully violating the [Fair Labor Standards Act].
Mortgage Lenders of America Loan Officers and Team Leaders
If you served as a Team Lead, Team Leader, Loan Officer, Mortgage Loan Officer, Entry Level Loan Officer, or held a similar position, and feel you were improperly denied overtime as required by federal and state wage laws, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected], to discuss your potential legal rights or claims.
Feb 6, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
lululemon athletica inc. Announces Resignation of CEO Laurent Potdevin
LULU Stock Price Drops 3.11% in After-Market Trading on February 5, 2018
On February 5, 2018, lululemon athletica issued a press release (“lululemon athletica inc. CEO Laurent Potdevin Resigns – Three senior leaders to assume expanded roles reporting to Executive Chairman Glenn Murphy”) which stated, in pertinent part, that lululemon (NASDAQ:LULU)
. . . the healthy lifestyle inspired athletic apparel company, today announced that Laurent Potdevin has resigned as CEO and as a member of the [lululemon] Board of Directors, effective immediately. lululemon expects all employees to exemplify the highest levels of integrity and respect for one another, and Mr. Potdevin fell short of these standards of conduct. The Board of Directors has immediately begun a search process for a proven and highly-experienced global Chief Executive Officer.
“While this was a difficult and considered decision, the Board thanks Laurent for his work in strengthening the company and positioning it for the future,” said Glenn Murphy, Executive Chairman of the Board. “Culture is at the core of lululemon, and it is the responsibility of leaders to set the right tone in our organization. Protecting the organization’s culture is one of the Board’s most important duties.”
[Emphasis added]
lululemon’s Form 8-K issued in this regard stated that on February 2, 2018, Laurent Potdevin resigned as CEO and as a member of lululemon’s board of directors; the board of directors appointed Glenn Murphy to serve as lululemon’s Executive Chairman; and lululemon’s senior leaders will report to Murphy during the search for a replacement CEO. The Form 8-K also stated that
[i]n connection with Mr. Potdevin’s resignation, lululemon entered into a separation agreement and release under which Mr. Potdevin agreed to a general release of claims in favor of lululemon, an extension of his non-solicitation period to a period of 24 months, a covenant not to sue and a covenant of future cooperation. In exchange for these releases and covenants, lululemon agreed to pay Mr. Potdevin a lump sum cash payment of $3,350,000 as soon as practicable after the effective date of the separation, and a cash payment of $1,650,000 to be paid over a period of 18 months in equal monthly installments beginning 60 days after the separation date. Mr. Potdevin will not receive any continued or accelerated vesting of any outstanding equity awards. Mr. Potdevin’s entitlement to this consideration is subject to his continuing compliance with the terms of the separation agreement and release, as well as various other restrictive covenants, including covenants relating to non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disparagement and confidentiality.
See also Yahoo! Finance’s “Lululemon’s CEO resigns over issue of conduct.”
lululemon Stock Price Drops 3.11% in After-Market Trading on News of CEO’s Resignation
On the news of the CEO’s resignation, LULU’s stock price dropped 3.11% in after-market trading from a February 5, 2018 close of $77.41.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
lululemon Investors and Shareholders
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating whether lululemon and certain of the company’s officers or directors violated securities laws, breached their fiduciary duties or engaged in other unlawful business practices. For more information, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Feb 6, 2018 | Blog, Consumer Protection
The Telemarketing Sales Rule: For-Profit Telemarketers Must Be Truthful
According to a recent Federal Trade Commission blog posting (“Telemarketing Sales Rule requires clarity on charity”):
To make sure that telemarketers are truthful about why they are calling, so consumers can make an informed decision about whether to engage with a telemarketer and contribute to a charity, the 2001USA Patriot Act expanded the Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule to cover calls made to solicit charitable contributions.
At the direction of Congress, the FTC modified the Telemarketing Sales Rule to:
1) Apply to interstate calls made by for-profit telemarketers to solicit charitable contributions;
2) Require for-profit telemarketers to promptly disclose the name of the group making the request and that the purpose of the call is to ask for a donation; and
3) Prohibit for-profit telemarketers from making false or misleading statements to induce a person to contribute.
For-Profit Charitable Callers Must Follow the Telemarketing Sales Rule
Another FTC blog posting (“For-profit charitable callers must follow the rules”) advised that “The Do Not Call Registry” is designed to stop unwanted sales calls; however, one exception to the Do Not Call Registry allows for-profit fundraisers to call individuals on behalf of charities even if one’s telephone number is listed on the Do Not Call Registry. When these charitable fundraisers call someone, however, they must still follow the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
Notable provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule Which For-Profit Fundraisers Must Follow:
Telemarketers must promptly tell consumers the charity on whose behalf they’re calling and truthfully disclose if the purpose of the call is to ask for a donation.
Telemarketers cannot make misleading statements to persuade people to donate, including misrepresentations about the charitable purpose, how much money goes to the charity, whether donations are tax deductible, how the money will be used, or the telemarketer’s connection to the charity.
Telemarketers cannot use robocalls or prerecorded messages to reach consumers unless the person is a current member of the charity or has donated to the charity in the past. And even if the consumer has donated to that charity before, robocalls from a telemarketer must promptly offer a way to opt out of future calls.
If the consumer tells the telemarketer they don’t want to be called by that charity again, the telemarketer must maintain a Do Not Call list for that charity and stop calling that person on behalf of that charity.
Telemarketers cannot call before 8 A.M. or after 9 P.M.
Telemarketers must keep certain records, like scripts and promotional materials, for two years.
Have You Received Unsolicited or Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Autodial Calls, Robocalls or Text Messages?
If you have received unwanted, unsolicited or harassing telemarketing calls, autodial calls, robocalls or text messages and would like to speak privately with an attorney to learn more about your potential legal rights, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
