Avery Products Corporation Data Breach – 61,193 Impacted

On December 9, 2024, Avery Products Corporation identified a security incident involving a ransomware attack targeting certain company systems. The subsequent investigation revealed that malicious software had been deployed by an unauthorized actor to “scrape” payment card information entered on the company’s website, avery.com, during the period between July 18, 2024, and December 9, 2024.

Affected Information

The compromised systems may have exposed the following sensitive customer information:

  • First and last name
  • Billing and shipping addresses
  • Email address and phone number (if provided)
  • Payment card information, including:
    • CVV number
    • Expiration date
    • Purchase amount

Possible Impact on Customers

While Avery Products Corporation has not confirmed a direct link between this breach and fraudulent charges, the company has received reports from two customers who incurred a fraudulent charge and/or phishing email.

Click here for additional details about the Avery Products Data Breach.

Source: Office of the Maine Attorney General

Have You Been Impacted by a Data Breach?

If you’ve experienced fraud, identity theft, or other harm due to a data breach, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is ready to assist you in understanding your rights. Our services are provided on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no costs to you. Any potential fees or litigation expenses will be subject to court approval. Contact us for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal options.

SEND US A MESSAGE

Contact Us

ADDRESS

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
2001 Market Street
Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Comerica Inc. – Breach of Fiduciary Duties Investigation (CMA)

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is invesigating whether certain executive officers or board members of Comerica Inc. (“Comerica”) (NYSE: CMA) failed to manage Comerica in an acceptable manner, in breach of their fiduciary duties to Comerica, and whether Comerica and its shareholders were harmed as a result.

CURRENT INVESTORS OF COMERICA STOCK ARE ENCOURAGED TO CLICK HERE TO CONTACT KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C. FOR A FREE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

CFPB v. Comerica Bank

On December 6, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) sued Comerica Bank, a subsidiary of publicly traded Comerica Inc., for systematically failing its 3.4 million Direct Express cardholders – primarily unbanked Americans receiving federal benefits.

Comerica Bank, according to the CFPB, deliberately disconnected 24 million customer service calls, impeding cardholders from exercising their rights under the law, charged illegal ATM fees to over 1 million cardholders, and mishandled fraud complaints while providing federal benefits through the Direct Express prepaid debit card program.

Key CFPB Lawsuit Allegations About How Comerica Harmed its Customers:

  • Deliberately disconnecting customer service calls: Comerica’s vendors intentionally dropped more than 24 million calls from customers before they could reach a representative. Customers whose calls were not dropped were routinely forced to endure excessively long wait times—often in excess of several hours—to speak with a representative to get help with unauthorized transactions, charge disputes, and lost or stolen cards.
  • Charging consumers illegal ATM fees: Over one million Direct Express cardholders were charged ATM fees to access their government benefits in situations where they were legally entitled to free withdrawals.
  • Misleading fraud victims: When consumers contacted Comerica alleging they had been fraudulently enrolled into the Direct Express program, the bank’s vendors frequently advised the consumers that “no error occurred” where the bank had determined that there was, in fact, enrollment fraud.
  • Imposing illegal terms of service on consumers seeking to stop payments: Comerica led its consumers to agree to waive their consumer protections by requiring cardholders to contact and request merchants to stop pre-authorized payment transfers from their account in situations where the law in fact required the bank to stop the transfers itself.
  • Failing to investigate account problems: Under federal law, when a customer notifies a bank about an incorrect or potentially fraudulent charge on their account, the bank must take steps to investigate the error within a specified time period. The CFPB’s investigation found that Comerica failed to meet this requirement more than 20,000 times. And when they did investigate, they frequently provided vague and confusing findings or blew off customers altogether.
  • Forcing consumers to close accounts, which often resulted in additional fees: The bank’s vendors required thousands of cardholders to close their accounts to stop a preauthorized payment, resulting in consumers incurring additional fees to expedite receipt of their new debit cards to regain access to their government benefits.

Read the CFPB complaint by clicking CFPB v. Comerica Bank.

COMERICA SHAREHOLDERS ALSO CAN CLICK HERE, EMAIL [email protected], OR CONTACT MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215) 792-6676, EXT. 804, [email protected] TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE COMERICA BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES INVESTIGATION.

SEND US A MESSAGE

Contact Us

ADDRESS

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
2001 Market Street
Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Aehr Test Systems Securities Class Action (AEHR)

AEHR TEST SYSTEMS, INC. (NASDAQ: AEHR) – Lucid Alternative Fund, LP v. Aehr Test Systems, et al., 3:24-cv-08683 (Dec. 3, 2024, N.D. Cal.)

On December 3, 2024, a federal securities class action was filed on behalf of investors that acquired Aehr Test Systems securities between January 9, 2024 and March 24, 2024, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants’ alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

Learn more about this case by clicking Aehr Test Systems complaint.

If you own AEHR stock and have questions about potential legal claims, please email us at [email protected] or complete our Securities Class Action Questionnaire. All submissions are confidential, evaluations of potential legal claims are free, and there is no obligation to take further action.

SEND US A MESSAGE

Contact Us

ADDRESS

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
2001 Market Street
Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Signet Jewelers Securities Investigation (SIG)

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities class action claims on behalf of investors of Signet Jewelers Ltd. (“Signet” or “Signet Jewelers”) (NYSE: SIG).

INVESTORS OF SIGNET STOCK WITH FINANCIAL LOSSES ARE ENCOURAGED TO CLICK HERE TO CONTACT KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C. FOR A FREE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS RELATED TO SIGNET JEWELER’S STOCK DROP.

Investing.com reported that “[t]he world’s largest retailer of diamond jewelry reported weaker holiday sales, with same-store sales . . . for the ten weeks ending January 11, 2025, declining by approximately 2%.”

On this news, Signet Jeweler’s stock was down more than 21% during intraday trading on January 14, 2025.

Investors of Signet stock should be aware that the recent news contrasts with the positive statements made by Signet on 12/5/2024. Among other things, Signet stated that it “. . . believes it is positioned to deliver a positive holiday performance this year, driven by our comprehensive go-to-market strategy which will lean into our strengths in fashion newness and services, as well as capitalize on the moderate increase in engagement units expected in the fourth quarter.”

INVESTORS OF SIGNET STOCK WITH FINANCIAL LOSSES INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION ALSO CAN EMAIL [email protected], OR CONTACT MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215) 792-6676, EXT. 804, [email protected].

SEND US A MESSAGE

Contact Us

ADDRESS

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
2001 Market Street
Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

FTC Report Reveals Alarming Price Markups by Big 3 PBMs on Lifesaving Specialty Drugs

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has published a second interim staff report that sheds light on troubling practices within the prescription drug middleman industry, specifically focusing on Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). These PBMs play a critical role in negotiating drug prices and managing prescription drug benefits, but their actions are raising concerns, particularly with respect to specialty generic drugs.

The latest report from the FTC reveals that the Big 3 PBMs—Caremark Rx (CVS), Express Scripts (ESI), and OptumRx—have been inflating prices of specialty generic drugs by hundreds and even thousands of percent. The drugs impacted by these exorbitant price hikes include treatments for cancer, HIV, and heart disease. Over the period from 2017 to 2022, these price increases allowed the Big 3 PBMs and their affiliated pharmacies to generate a staggering $7.3 billion in excess revenue, all while patient, employer, and healthcare plan sponsor payments for drugs continued to rise annually.

Key Findings from the FTC Report

The FTC’s report draws from a variety of data sources, including special orders issued by the FTC in 2022 under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act. Some of the key findings from the latest report include:

  1. Significant Price Markups: PBMs imposed dramatic markups on numerous specialty generic drugs. For example, drugs for cancer and HIV treatment saw prices marked up by thousands of percent. These price hikes were not only excessive, but disproportionately affected drugs dispensed through PBM-affiliated pharmacies compared to unaffiliated pharmacies.
  2. Steering Profitable Prescriptions: The data suggests that PBMs may be directing highly profitable prescriptions—those marked up by over $1,000 per prescription—towards their own affiliated pharmacies, rather than unaffiliated ones.
  3. Revenue Surplus: Over the study period, PBM-affiliated pharmacies generated over $7.3 billion in revenue beyond the estimated acquisition cost of the drugs, as measured by the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC). This surplus revenue grew at an alarming rate of 42 percent annually between 2017 and 2021.
  4. Spread Pricing: In addition to the markups, the Big 3 PBMs earned an estimated $1.4 billion through spread pricing, i.e., billing their plan sponsor clients more than they reimburse pharmacies for drugs—on the analyzed specialty generic drugs over the study period.
  5. Impact on Operating Income: The analyzed specialty generic drugs were a key driver of the operating income for the parent healthcare conglomerates behind the Big 3 PBMs. In 2021, this revenue represented 12 percent of the total operating income reported by the PBMs’ parent healthcare conglomerates’ business segments that include their PBM and pharmacy business in 2021.
  6. Increasing Drug Spending: Between 2017 and 2021, the cost of specialty generic drugs continued to rise at significant rates. Plan sponsors paid a total of $4.8 billion for these drugs in 2021 alone, while patients contributed $297 million in cost-sharing. Between 2017 and 2021 plan sponsors and patient payments both increased at compound annual growth rates of 21% for commercial claims, and 14%-15% for Medicare Part D claims.

The Call for Action

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan emphasized the need for swift action to address the growing issue. “The FTC should keep using its tools to investigate practices that may inflate drug costs, squeeze independent pharmacies, and deprive Americans of affordable, accessible healthcare—and should act swiftly to stop any illegal conduct, ”Khan stated.

Hannah Garden-Monheit, Director of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning, added, “FTC staff have found that the Big 3 PBMs are charging enormous markups on dozens of lifesaving drugs.” “We also found that this problem is growing at an alarming rate, which means there is an urgent need for policymakers to address it.”

For more details on the FTC’s findings, read the full report here.