Jan 10, 2022 | Blog
The Securities and Exchange Commission has announced two awards totaling more than $4 million to whistleblowers who provided information and assistance in two separate covered actions.
In the first order, the SEC issued an award of approximately $2.6 million to one whistleblower. The whistleblower, who reported internally before reporting to the SEC, provided significant new information during an existing investigation that alerted SEC staff to misconduct occurring overseas, which would have been difficult to detect in the absence of the whistleblower’s information.
In the second order, the SEC issued approximately $1.5 million to joint whistleblowers who provided substantial ongoing assistance throughout the course of the investigation that led to the success of the covered action. The joint whistleblowers had multiple communications with SEC staff and provided information about key witnesses.
The SEC has awarded approximately $1.2 billion to 241 individuals since issuing its first award in 2012. All payments are made out of an investor protection fund established by Congress that is financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the SEC by securities law violators. No money has been taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards. Whistleblowers may be eligible for an award when they voluntarily provide the SEC with original, timely, and credible information that leads to a successful enforcement action. Whistleblower awards can range from 10 percent to 30 percent of the money collected when the monetary sanctions exceed $1 million.
As set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not disclose any information that could reveal a whistleblower’s identity.
Source: SEC.gov
Questions Or Concerns About Providing Information To The SEC About Securities Fraud?
If so, please know that Kehoe Law Firm’s legal team understands the issues associated with making the decision to voluntarily come forward with information about securities fraud or other wrongdoing. Moreover, the Firm’s legal staff has extensive experience investigating and prosecuting fraud, as well as interacting with sources of information, especially brave, honest individuals who are willing to expose fraud committed against the United States government.
If you have questions or concerns about voluntarily providing information as a whistleblower to the SEC regarding violations of the federal securities laws, including questions about whistleblower award eligibility or the form and manner in which the information is required to be provided to the SEC, please complete the form on the right or contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., [email protected].
If you prefer to speak privately with an attorney, please contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, or John Kehoe, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801.
Jan 10, 2022 | Blog, Consumer Protection
FTC Report To Congress Finds There Is Little Evidence To Support Manufacturers’ Justifications For Repair Restrictions
In a new report to Congress, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) identified numerous types of repair restrictions, such as using adhesives that make parts difficult to replace, limiting the availability of spare parts, and making diagnostic software unavailable.
The report’s findings, including that “there is scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions,” are primarily based on responses to the FTC’s requests for public comments and empirical research issued in connection with its July 2019 workshop, “Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions.”
Congress directed the FTC to issue the report, noting that it “is aware of the FTC’s ongoing review of how manufacturers – in particular mobile phone and car manufacturers – may limit repairs by consumers and repair shops, and how those limitations may increase costs, limit choice, and impact consumers’ rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.”
The Anti-Tying Provision Of The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”)
The MMWA is a consumer protection law passed in 1975 to clarify how written warranties may be used when marketing products to consumers.
The MMWA requires warrantors of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage.
Section 102(c) of the MMWA, known as the anti-tying provision, prohibits warrantors from conditioning warranty coverage on the consumer’s use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name, unless the warrantor provides that article or service without charge or the warrantor has received a waiver from the FTC.
This provision, for example, bars an automobile manufacturer from voiding a warranty if a consumer has scheduled maintenance performed by someone other than the dealer, prohibits a printer manufacturer from conditioning its warranty on the purchaser’s use of the manufacturer’s branded ink, and forbids a smartphone manufacturer from voiding a warranty when a consumer has a new battery installed at a kiosk at the mall.
Essentially, the anti-tying provision bars manufacturers from using access to warranty coverage as a way of obstructing consumers’ ability to have their consumer products maintained or repaired using third-party replacement parts and independent repair shops.
Companies may seek a waiver of this prohibition if: (1) the warrantor satisfies the FTC that the manufacturers’ parts or services are necessary for the product to function, and (2) the waiver is in the public interest. Since 1975, only three waiver requests have been made to the FTC, all of which were denied.
Types Of Repair Restrictions
There are certain manufacturer practices that “right to repair” advocates assert have the effect of limiting consumer repair choices.
Repair restrictions discussed at the FTC’s July 2019 Workshop on Repair Restrictions generally fall into eight categories:
1) Physical restrictions; 2) Unavailability of parts, repair manuals, and diagnostic software and tools; 3) Designs that make independent repairs less safe; Telematics (i.e., information on the operation and status of a vehicle that is collected by a system contained in the vehicle and wirelessly relayed to a central location, often the manufacturer or dealer of the vehicle); 4) Application of patent rights and enforcement of trademarks; 5) Disparagement of non-OEM parts and independent repair; 6) Software locks; 7) Digital Rights Management and Technical Protection Measures; and 8) End User License Agreements.
Source: Federal Trade Commission
If you feel that you have been prevented or obstructed from having a consumer product repaired using third-party replacement parts or independent repair shops or facilities, or that your warranty was voided, or will be voided, because of independent repair, please complete the form on the right or e-mail [email protected] for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Jan 10, 2022 | Antitrust
Antitrust Investigation On Behalf Of Students Who Attended Certain Educational Institutions To Determine Whether Those Academic Institutions Participated In A Price-Fixing Cartel
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential antitrust claims on behalf of students who attended certain educational institutions to determine whether those institutions participated in a price-fixing cartel designed to reduce or eliminate financial aid as a source of competition, and that artificially inflated the net price of attendance for students receiving financial aid.
Class Action Lawsuit Filed
On January 9, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, under Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Brown University (“Brown”), California Institute of Technology (“CalTech”), University of Chicago (“Chicago”), The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (“Columbia”), Cornell University (“Cornell”), Trustees of Dartmouth College (“Dartmouth”), Duke University (“Duke”), Emory University (“Emory”), Georgetown University (“Georgetown”), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), Northwestern University (“Northwestern”), University of Notre Dame du Lac (“Notre Dame”), The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”), William Marsh Rice University (“Rice”), Vanderbilt University (“Vanderbilt”), and Yale University (“Yale”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
According to the complaint, the Defendants “. . . participated in a price-fixing cartel that is designed to reduce or eliminate financial aid as a locus of competition, and that in fact has artificially inflated the net price of attendance for students receiving financial aid.” [Emphasis added.]
To view a copy of the class action complaint, please click Financial Aid Class Action Complaint.
Please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., [email protected], for a free, no-obligation and confidential evaluation of potential legal claims if, with respect to the following educational institutions and during the periods indicated, you (a) enrolled in a full-time undergraduate program; (b) received need-based financial aid from the institution, and (c) paid to the institution tuition, room or board which was not fully covered by such financial aid:
- Brown—2004 through 2012
- CalTech—2019 to the present
- Chicago—2003 through 2014
- Columbia—2003 to the present
- Cornell—2003 to the present
- Duke—2003 to the present
- Dartmouth—2004 to the present
- Emory—2004 through 2012
- Georgetown—2003 to the present
- MIT—2003 to the present
- Northwestern—2003 to the present
- Notre Dame—2003 to the present
- Penn—2003 to the present
- Rice—2003 through 2009 & 2017 to the present
- Vanderbilt—2003 through 2019
- Yale—2003 through 2007 & 2018 to the present
