Feb 26, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware of the following Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action lawsuit filings:
The Baltimore Life Insurance Company
Class action lawsuit filed against The Baltimore Life Insurance Company on February 24, 2020 in United States District Court for the District of Maryland “to stop its [alleged] practice of engaging agents to place unsolicited autodialed and prerecorded telemarketing calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.”
According to the class action complaint, “Baltimore Life engages agents and marketing organizations to conduct a wide-scale telemarketing scheme that features the placement of autodialed and prerecorded calls to consumers nationwide.” The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff received calls on Plaintiff’s cellular phone [from telephone numbers (770) 768-6820, (770) 877-3866, and (229) 860-6013] “soliciting Plaintiff to purchase Baltimore Life’s insurance products.” The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, “does not have a current relationship with Defendant and has never provided any form of prior express consent to [Baltimore Life Insurance Company].”
Rapid Response Monitoring Services Incorporated
Class action lawsuit filed against Rapid Response Monitoring Services Incorporated in United States District Court for the Northern District of New York to, among other things, “stop its [alleged] practice of placing calls (either on its own or via a third-party acting on its behalf and for its benefit) using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express consent.”
According to the complaint, “Defendant [Rapid Response Monitoring Services] knowingly made . . . unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls without the prior express written consent of the call recipients as well as calls to those on the [N]ational [D]o [N]ot [C]all [R]egistry. In so doing, Defendant not only invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Classes, but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.”
Allegedly, the Plaintiff’s cellular telephone received an “unsolicited telemarketing call” from (267) 876-4411, a “call [which] featured an artificial or pre-recorded voice.” The Plaintiff, subsequently, received a call from (267) 877-1103, a call placed, allegedly, by “a representative of Alliance Security,” as well as a call from (267) 877-1103, a call from an alleged Alliance Security representative as a “follow up on the unsolicited telemarketing call [the Plaintiff] received . . . regarding a home security system which would be monitored by [Rapid Response Monitoring Services].” Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Plaintiff received a call from (267) 686-2060.
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.
Feb 25, 2020 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Investigating Securities Claims Against Tupperware Brands Corporation – TUP
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Tupperware Brands Corporation (“Tupperware” or the “Company”) (NYSE: TUP) resulting from allegations that Tupperware may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Tupperware securities between January 30, 2019 and February 24, 2020 (the “Class Period”), you 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 learn more about the Tupperware securities investigation or your potential legal claims.
On February 28, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, against Tupperware Brands Corporation and other Company executives. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, [Tupperware] Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, [Tupperware] Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) Tupperware lacked effective internal controls; (2) there were accounting irregularities relating to the Company’s Fuller Mexico business; (3) as a result of the above, Tupperware would need to investigate those accounting irregularities and be unable to timely file its 2019 annual report; (4) Tupperware would need relief from its $650 million Credit Agreement; (5) Tupperware provided overvalued earnings per share guidance; and (6) as a result of the above, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On February 25, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, against Tupperware Brands Corporation and other Company executives. According to the complaint, Defendants, allegedly, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tupperware lacked effective internal controls; (2) as a result, Tupperware would need to investigate Fuller Mexico’s accounting and liabilities; (3) consequently, Tupperware would be unable to timely file its annual report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year 2019; (4) Tupperware did not properly account for its accounts payable and accrued liabilities at Fuller Mexico; (5) Tupperware provided overvalued earnings per share guidance; (6) Tupperware would need relief from its $650 million Credit Agreement; and (7) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On February 24, 2020, post-market, Tupperware issued a press release announcing it will need an extension within which to timely file its annual report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019. Tupperware also announced it expects 2019 net earnings per share “in the range of breakeven to $0.34 versus $3.11 in the prior year[,]” and adjusted EPS of “$1.35-$1.70 versus $4.30 in the prior year.”
Tupperware said results were affected by “financial reporting issues in Fuller Mexico” and that Tupperware is “conducting an investigation primarily into the accounting for accounts payable and accrued liabilities at its Fuller Mexico beauty business[.]” Additionally, “[Tupperware] is forecasting a need for relief concerning its existing leverage ratio covenant in its $650 million Credit Agreement dated March 29, 2019 . . . to avoid a potential acceleration of the debt, which could have a material adverse impact on the Company.”
On this news, Tupperware’s stock price dropped significantly, and on February 25, 2020, Tupperware’s stock was down as much as 45%.
If you wish to discuss Kehoe Law Firm’s Tupperware securities investigation or have questions about your potential legal rights, please contact either John Kehoe, Esq, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], to learn more about the investigation or potential legal claims.
Feb 25, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that news3lv.com reported (“Class action lawsuit filed against MGM Resorts over data breach“) that
[a] class-action lawsuit has been filed in federal court seeking damages over a data breach that MGM Resorts suffered last year.
The suit, filed in Nevada District Court on Friday, alleges the breach included customers’ drivers’ license numbers, passport numbers and dates of birth.
The suit comes after the website ZDNet reported that the personal details of about 10.6 million guests were compromised in a breach from 2019.
Have You Been Impacted by A Data Breach?
If so, please either contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Partner Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected] for a free, no-obligation case evaluation of your facts to determine whether your privacy rights have been violated and whether there is a basis for a data privacy class action.
Examples of the type of relief sought by data privacy class actions, include, but are not limited to, reimbursement of identity theft losses and of out-of-pocket costs paid by data breach victims for protective measures such as credit monitoring services, credit reports, and credit freezes; compensation for time spent responding to the breach; imposition of credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, paid for by the defendant company; and improvements to the defendant company’s data security systems.
Data privacy class actions are brought on a contingent-fee basis; thus, plaintiffs and the class members do not pay out-of-pocket attorney’s fees or litigation costs. Subject to court approval, attorney’s fees and litigation costs are derived from the recovery obtained for the class.
Feb 25, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
FTC Announces That It Will Send Refund Checks to Tech Support Scam Victims
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on February 25, 2020, the FTC announced that it will begin sending refunds totaling more than $1.7 million to consumers who were victims of a tech support scam. The scam tricked consumers into buying tech support services by claiming their computers were infected with viruses, malware, or other security breaches.
The FTC, along with State of Connecticut and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, alleged that the perpetrators of the scheme, which operated under Click4Support and other names, used ads on search engines like Google and popups on websites. The ads and popups, according to the FTC, claimed to be from major tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple and tricked consumers into calling the defendants and buying tech support services that consumers did not need.
The FTC will begin providing 57,960 refunds averaging about $30 each to victims of the scheme. Most recipients will get their refunds via PayPal, but those who receive checks 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 refund recipients have questions about the refunds, they should contact the FTC’s refund administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., at 1-877-389-4472.
Source: FTC.gov
Feb 25, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that infosecurity-magazine.com reported (“Slickwraps Breach Hits 857,000 Customers“) that “[a] popular producer of smartphone skins has suffered a major data breach, compromising the personal details of over 857,000 customers.” According to infosecurity-magazine.com, “Slickwraps issued a breach notification to customers last Friday, claiming that data in ‘some of our non-production databases was mistakenly made public via an exploit,’ and then accessed by an unauthorized third party.”
Infosecurity-magazine.com also reported that:
[a]ccording to notification site HaveIBeenPwned?, 857,611 unique email addresses were compromised in the breach, belonging to customers and newsletter subscribers. Also included were names, physical addresses, phone numbers and purchase histories.
Slickwraps assured users that if they checked out as “guest” their details are safe. It added that no passwords or financial data were stolen, but recommended customers change their passwords anyway out of precaution.
Jake Moore, cybersecurity specialist at ESET, warned that hackers can still do a lot of damage, even with a list of emails and names.
‘The biggest risk is via brute force attacking the accounts, where criminals use leaked common password combinations against the emails to try and break into other personal accounts. A large number of people still use predictable or simple passwords,’ he explained.
Have You Been Impacted by A Data Breach?
If so, please either contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Partner Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected] for a free, no-obligation case evaluation of your facts to determine whether your privacy rights have been violated and whether there is a basis for a data privacy class action.
Examples of the type of relief sought by data privacy class actions, include, but are not limited to, reimbursement of identity theft losses and of out-of-pocket costs paid by data breach victims for protective measures such as credit monitoring services, credit reports, and credit freezes; compensation for time spent responding to the breach; imposition of credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, paid for by the defendant company; and improvements to the defendant company’s data security systems.
Data privacy class actions are brought on a contingent-fee basis; thus, plaintiffs and the class members do not pay out-of-pocket attorney’s fees or litigation costs. Subject to court approval, attorney’s fees and litigation costs are derived from the recovery obtained for the class.
