Mar 24, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
FTC Sending Refunds Totaling More Than $6.9 Million To Small Businesses, Non-Profits, And Government Agencies Targeted By An Office Supply Telemarketing Scam
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is sending refunds totaling more than $6.9 million to small businesses, non-profits, and government agencies targeted by an office supply telemarketing scam that charged them for products they did not order. The FTC alleged that defendants’ victims included child care centers, schools, and police and fire departments.
According to the FTC, Telestar Consulting Inc. and Karl Wesley Angel offered an initial shipment represented either as free or as a low-cost “good deal.” If the consumer agreed to make a purchase, the defendants did not disclose the total cost, quantity, or terms of the sale. The FTC alleged that Telestar, d/b/a United Business Supply, and, subsequently, as Kleritec, also sent additional shipments of merchandise without obtaining the consumer’s agreement.
When consumers challenged the invoices they received or did not pay promptly, the defendants, according to the FTC, threatened to send them to “collections.” Those consumers who paid, mistakenly believing they had to pay, often received even more unordered merchandise and bills for payment.
The FTC has begun mailing 13,181 refund checks averaging $525 each to the victims of the scam. Refund recipients, according to the FTC, should deposit or cash their checks within 60 days, as indicated on the check. The FTC never requires people to pay money or provide account information to cash a refund check. If recipients have questions about the refunds, they should contact the FTC’s refund administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., at (800) 870-7192.
The FTC’s new interactive dashboards for refund data provide a state-by-state breakdown of these refunds. In 2019, FTC actions led to more than $232 million in refunds to consumers across the country.
Source: Federal Trade Commission – FTC.gov
Mar 24, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Progressive Management Systems Over Alleged Debt Collection Calls in Violation of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on March 23, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against Progressive Management Systems in United States District Court, Central District of California, for, allegedly, “negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.”
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff incurred a debt to a third party sometime before December 4, 2017. The Plaintiff “fell behind” on the debt payments, and the debt was “placed, assigned, or otherwise transferred to [Progressive Management Systems] for collection purposes.” The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, filed for bankruptcy, and “[o]n or around March 7, 2018, Plaintiff’s [d]ebts [were] discharged pursuant to a court order that was mailed to Defendant by the bankruptcy court,” and “following March 7, 2018, Plaintiff had no account and existing debt with [Progressive Management Systems].”
The complaint alleges that Progressive Management Systems “placed at least three calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, using a pre-recorded message” from telephone number (866) 767-2296 in 2019. The complaint alleges that the calls to Plaintiff “were not in connection with any existing debt” and “were unsolicited and not in response to an inquiry from Plaintiff.”
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Mar 24, 2020 | Securities Class Action Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Exela Technologies On Behalf of Persons or Entities That Purchased, Or Otherwise Acquired, Exela Securities Between March 16, 2018 and March 16, 2020, Both Dates Inclusive – Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Investigating Securities Claims on Behalf of XELA Investors Who Suffered Losses
On March 23, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of persons or entities who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the publicly-traded securities of Exela Technologies, Inc. (“Exela” or the “Company”) (NasdaqCM: XELA) from March 16, 2018 through March 16, 2020, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the XELA Defendants’ alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the class action complaint, Exela made materially false and/or misleading statements, because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to Exela’s business, operations, and prospects, which were known to the Exela Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Exela Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Exela’s previously issued financial statements for the twelve months ended December, 31, 2017 and December 31, 2018, and the quarterly statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019 contained numerous accounting errors, could not be relied upon, and required restatement; and (2) as a result, the Exela Defendants’ statements about the Company’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Exela Announces Delayed Filing of Form 10-K For Fiscal 2019 & The Need To Restate Financial Statements For Fiscal Years 2017/2018 And Interim 2019 Statements
According to the class action complaint, on March 16, 2020, Exela issued a press release announcing that the Company would be postponing its earnings and conference call due to a delayed filing of Exela’s Form 10-K for fiscal year 2019.
On this news, the Exela’s shares fell $0.0154 per share, or more than 8.3%, to close at $0.17 per share on March 17, 2020.
According to the class action complaint, on March 17, 2020, Exela issued a press release announcing that in addition to not being able to file the Company’s Form 10-K on time, Exela also would need to restate its financial statements for fiscal years 2017 and 2018, as well as its interim 2019 statements.
On this news, Exela’s shares fell an additional $0.025 per share, or more than 14.7%, to close at $0.145 per share on March 18, 2020.
Exela investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, XELA securities during the Class Period and suffered losses are encouraged to contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], or John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], to discuss the class action lawsuit or potential legal claims.
Mar 24, 2020 | Securities Class Action Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. On Behalf of Investors Who Purchased Shares of RTIX Stock Between March 7, 2016 and March 16, 2020 – Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Investigating Securities Claims On Behalf of RTI Surgical Investors
According to the lawsuit, RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. (“RTI Surgical” or the “Company”) (NasdaqGS: RTIX), throughout the Class Period between March 7, 2016 and March 16, 2020, both dates inclusive, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company inappropriately recognized revenues with respect to certain contractual arrangements, including other equipment manufacturer customers; (2) RTI Surgical’s internal controls over financial reporting were not effective; (3) as a result, RTI Surgical would be forced to delay the filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2019; and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
RTI Surgical Announces Delay In Filing Form 10-K For Fiscal Year 2019 – RTIX Conducting Internal Investigation of Current and Prior Period Matters Relating to Revenue Recognition Practices Regarding Certain Contractual Arrangements
On March 16, 2020, RTI Surgical announced that it will delay filing its Form 10-K for the fiscal year which ended December 31, 2019. The Company stated that its
. . . Audit Committee (the “Audit Committee”) of the Company’s Board of Directors, with the assistance of independent legal and forensic accounting advisors, is in the process of conducting an internal investigation of current and prior period matters relating to the Company’s revenue recognition practices regarding the timing of revenue with respect to certain contractual arrangements, primarily with OEM customers, including the accounting treatment, financial reporting and internal controls related to such arrangements. The Audit Committee investigation was precipitated by an ongoing SEC investigation related to the periods 2014 through 2016. The Company will not be in a position to file its Form 10-K until the Audit Committee concludes its investigation and the Company and its independent auditor assess the results of that investigation. The Company is working to complete its analysis and file its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 within the extension period (through March 31, 2020), but no assurance can be given that it will be able to do so. [Emphasis added.]
RTI Surgical investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, RTIX securities during the Class Period and suffered losses are encouraged to contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], or John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], to discuss the class action lawsuit or potential legal claims.
Mar 23, 2020 | Securities Class Action Archive
XP Inc. – Class Action Lawsuit Filed On Behalf Of Purchasers of XP Securities In Connection With XP’s December 2019 IPO – XP Shareholders Who Purchased, Or Otherwise Acquired, XP Securities In Connection With XP’s Initial Public Offering Are Encouraged to Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making investors aware that on March 21, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased, or otherwise acquired, XP securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with XP’s December 2019 initial public offering (the “IPO” or “Offering”).
According to the complaint, in December 2019, the Defendants held the XP IPO, offering approximately 83 million Class A common shares to the investing public at $27.00 per share. By the commencement of the class action, XP’s shares traded significantly below XP’s IPO price. As a result, XP investors were damaged.
The complaint alleges that the IPO’s Registration Statement contained materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) XP engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) XP failed to disclose its common and large system failures and connected losses; (3) XP’s aggressive Independent Financial Agents strategy was and is tenuous; (4) XP had material weaknesses; (5) XP fired its previous accounting firm due to that firm finding and disclosing material weaknesses; and (6) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
