May 9, 2019 | Whistleblower
On May 6, 2019, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) announced a whistleblower award of approximately $1.5 million to be paid to an individual whistleblower. The CFTC announced that it granted the whistleblower’s award application for both a CFTC action and a related action brought by another federal regulator. In ordering the award, the CFTC recognized the contribution of a whistleblower who sought to report his or her concerns internally prior to reporting to the CFTC.
“While there is no requirement that a whistleblower report internally before approaching the Commission, today’s award demonstrates that the Commission may pay enhanced awards to those that do – that is one of the positive factors set out in our rules for the Commission to consider in making its award determination,” said Christopher Ehrman, Director of CFTC’s Whistleblower Office. “To be clear, the Commission’s rules do not require a whistleblower to undertake internal reporting efforts in order to be eligible for the benefits and protections of our program. Instead, a whistleblower can contact us directly whenever he or she wishes – and may do so anonymously.”
CFTC’s Whistleblower Program was created under Section 748 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The CFTC can pay awards not only on CFTC enforcement actions, but also on related actions brought by other federal regulators if certain conditions are met. Whistleblowers are eligible to receive between 10 and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected.
In addition, the program affords protections against retaliation. Employers may not take any action to impede a would-be whistleblower from communicating directly with the CFTC’s staff about possible violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”); nor may employers discharge, demote, suspend, harass, or in any way discriminate against someone for providing information to the CFTC under the Whistleblower Program. An employee may have a private right of action, and the CFTC may bring an enforcement action against an employer for any retaliatory acts.
The CEA also provides confidentiality protections for whistleblowers. Regardless of whether the CFTC grants an award, the CFTC will not disclose any information which could reasonably be expected to reveal a whistleblower’s identity, except in limited circumstances such as when disclosure is required in connection with a public proceeding, or when the Director of the Division of Enforcement (“DOE”) exercises his/her authority to share important information with other regulators. Consistent with this confidentiality requirement, the CFTC will not disclose the name of the enforcement action in which the whistleblower provided information or the exact dollar amount of the award granted.
All whistleblower awards are paid from the CFTC Customer Protection Fund established by Congress and financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the CFTC by violators of the CEA. No money is taken or withheld from harmed investors to fund the program.
Since issuing its first award in 2014, through 2018, the CFTC has awarded more than $85 million to whistleblowers. DOE actions associated with those awards have resulted in sanctions orders totaling more than $675 million.
Source: CFTC.gov
Apr 22, 2019 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential claims on behalf of investors of Apyx Medical Corporation (“Apyx”) (NASDAQ: APYX) pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of individuals or entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, Apyx Medical Corporation securities between August 1, 2018 and April 1, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
Investors have 60 days from April 17, 2019 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit. If you are an APYX shareholder who has suffered losses, please click Join a Securities Class Action to participate in the class action lawsuit or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], [email protected].
On February 21, 2019, White Diamond Research released a report alleging that a clinical study on the use of Apyx’s J-Plasma for dermal resurfacing may have missed its endpoints.
On this news, shares of Apyx fell $2.10 per share, or approximately 25%, to close at $6.40 on February 21, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
Subsequently, on April 1, 2019, Apyx announced that it “. . . withdr[ew] its application for premarket notification 510(k) regulatory clearance of J-Plasma/Renuvion for use in dermal resurfacing procedures. [Apyx] will continue to work with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration . . . relative to the development of a new 510(k) submission. At the present time, [Apyx] cannot provide a timeline for resubmission but intends to do so after further discussions with the [FDA].”
Apyx stated that although an “investigational device exemption (IDE) study evaluating the safety and efficacy of J-Plasma/Renuvion technology for the reduction of facial wrinkles and rhytides,” did not “. . . yield[] . . . serious adverse events . . . , the study did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint . . . .” Apyx also stated that “[i]n the course of [FDA] review of . . . [Apyx’s] submission, the [FDA] raised a number of questions and concerns related to superior clinical results from one investigational center as compared to the other two investigational centers in the study. The [FDA] also questioned the potential impact of protocol deviations at this investigational center including the prophylactic use of methylprednisolone in all but five subjects treated.”
On this news, shares of Apyx fell $2.49 per share, or more than 35%, to close at $4.46 on April 2, 2019, thereby further injuring investors.
The class action complaint filed in United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Apyx’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the clinical study on the use of J-Plasma for dermal resurfacing had not met its primary efficacy endpoint; (2) that, as a result, the clinical study did not support Apyx’s application for regulatory clearance; (3) and, as a result, Apyx was unlikely to receive regulatory approval of J-Plasma for dermal resurfacing; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about Apyx’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Investors who purchased APYX stock during the Class Period and suffered damages have 60 days from April 17, 2019 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Again, Apyx investors can click Join a Securities Class Action to participate in the lawsuit. Please note that no class has been certified in the above action, and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain an attorney of your choice. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may serve together as “lead plaintiff.” Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Apr 18, 2019 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on February 27, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against Adobe, Inc. (“Adobe”) in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, allegedly, for “routinely violat[ing]” the Telephone Consumer Protection Act “. . . by using an automatic telephone dialing system to place non-emergency calls to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service without prior express consent, in that [Adobe] place[d] autodialed calls to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers.”
The class action complaint alleged that Defendant Adobe “placed at least one call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number . . . from telephone number (800) 685-3598. Telephone number (800) 685-3598, according to the complaint, “[w]hen dialed, . . . delivers a prerecorded message[] that states: ‘Thanks for calling Adobe customer assistance and support . . . .’”
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.
Apr 16, 2019 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on April 15, 2019, a class action complaint was filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, against Hyundai Motor America, Inc. (“Hyundai Motor”) “. . . for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Hyundai Motor . . . in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff’s cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act . . . .”
According to the class action complaint:
In or around early January 2019, Plaintiff frequented the Russell Westbrook Hyundai of Garden Grove car dealership (the “Garden Grove Dealership”) – one of Defendant’s franchisee dealerships located in Garden Grove, California – to test drive one of Defendant’s automobiles available for purchase there.
Shortly after visiting the Garden Grove Dealership, [Hyundai Motor] transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or intermediaries, including without limitation one or more of its agent(s) at the Garden Grove Dealership, one or more SMS or MMS text messages to the [Plaintiff’s cellular] [n]umber without Plaintiff’s prior express written consent . . . . [Emphasis added]
Further, according to the complaint, “[t]he source of the above-depicted unsolicited text message that Defendant transmitted to the [Plaintiff’s cellular] [n]umber was (714) 577-2046, which is a telephone number leased by Defendant or Defendant’s agent(s) or affiliate(s) and is used for operating Defendant’s text message marketing program.”
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.
Apr 16, 2019 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
On April 11, 2019, the SEC announced that it charged two former directors of investments at Woodbridge Group of Companies LLC for their roles in its massive Ponzi scheme. According to the SEC, the defendants, California-based Ivan Acevedo (“Acevedo”) and Dane R. Roseman (“Roseman”), were separately arrested and charged by criminal authorities, along with Woodbridge owner Robert H. Shapiro.
The SEC previously charged Woodbridge and Shapiro, and Woodbridge’s highest-earning unregistered brokers. In January, a federal court in Florida ordered Woodbridge, related companies, and Shapiro together to pay $1 billion for operating this Ponzi scheme.
According to the SEC’s complaint, although Acevedo and Roseman were not registered in any capacity with the SEC, they were responsible for fraudulently raising at least $1.2 billion from more than 8,400 retail investors, many of them seniors, and together received more than $3 million in transaction-based and other compensation.
According to the SEC, the complaint, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleged that Acevedo oversaw Woodbridge’s fundraising for Woodbridge’s securities from 2012 until his departure in 2015, when he was succeeded by Roseman. According to the complaint, the defendants were responsible for hiring and training Woodbridge’s sales force, approved fraudulent marketing materials and sales scripts, and helped create the false appearance that Woodbridge was a legitimate operation when in reality it was a Ponzi scheme that used money from new investors to pay existing investors.
The SEC’s complaint charged Acevedo and Roseman with violating the securities registration, broker-dealer registration, and anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and seeks disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains, with interest, and financial penalties.
The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has issued an Investor Alert to help seniors identify signs of investment fraud and, in conjunction with the Division of Enforcement’s Retail Strategy Task Force, another Investor Alert about Ponzi schemes targeting seniors. The SEC strongly encourages investors to use the agency’s Investor.gov website to check the backgrounds of people selling them investments to quickly identify whether they are registered professionals.
Source: SEC.gov
