Aug 6, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
On August 2, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Kohl’s Corporation in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, seeking, among other relief, statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) for allegedly “harvest[ing] the cellular phone numbers of potential customers” by “advertis[ing] single-use coupons to those who text message [Kohl’s] with a keyword (e.g. ‘SAVE’).” The TCPA class action alleged that “[w]ithout their consent, upon receipt of a coupon request, [Kohl’s] automatically opts consumers into its text messaging campaigns,” and “[b]y automatically opting consumers who are merely seeking a coupon, [Kohl’s] fails to obtain the requisite express written consent to send these consumers its marketing text message campaigns.”
According to the complaint, Kohl’s “caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.”
In or about May 2018, according to the complaint, the Plaintiff became aware that Kohl’s was offering a discount coupon through www.dontwasteyourmoney.com. The Plaintiff texted “SAVE” to “short code” 564-7 to receive a coupon providing a 15% discount “redeemable at kohls.com.” The day the Plaintiff texted Kohl’s to receive the discount coupon, Kohl’s, allegedly, “caused two automated text messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number.” One message “welcomed Plaintiff to ‘Kohl’s Mobile Sales Alerts!’,” and the other text message “provided Plaintiff with the 15% off coupon she was seeking.”
According to the complaint, Kohl’s “automatically opted Plaintiff into its text messaging marketing campaign,” and the Plaintiff received a third text message marketing/promoting Kohl’s “business, goods and services,” which “was outside the scope of the limited consent provided by Plaintiff when she texted [Kohl’s] for a single-use coupon.”
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 TCPA.
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.
Aug 6, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. has commenced an investigation on behalf of Impinj, Inc. investors concerning possible securities laws violations.
On August 2, 2018, Impinj (NASDAQ: PI), “a leading provider and pioneer of RAIN RFID solutions for identifying, locating and authenticating everyday items,” announced that it would delay releasing its second quarter 2018 results and investor conference call, as well as the filing of PI’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2018, because it is commencing a probe into a complaint filed by a former employee. Impinj also noted that the company contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the independent investigation.
According to Impinj:
The Audit Committee of Impinj’s Board of Directors has commenced an independent investigation in connection with a complaint filed by a former employee. The Audit Committee has retained independent counsel to assist it in its investigation. Impinj has contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission . . . to advise it that an independent investigation is underway, and the Audit Committee intends to provide additional information to the SEC as appropriate as the investigation proceeds. Impinj cannot predict the duration or outcome of the investigation, and will not be in a position to file Form 10-Q until the Audit Committee completes its investigation (emphasis added).
Impinj also stated that “[b]ecause the investigation is not yet completed and no conclusions with respect thereto have been reached, Impinj is currently unable to determine whether any changes will be required with respect to its reported results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018 or any other period, as well as any impact on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.”
On this news, Impinj’s share price fell $3.02 per share, or 13.7%, to close at $18.97 per share on August 3, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Impinj, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit Filed
On August 7, 2018, a class action on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Impinj securities between May 7, 2018 and August 2, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”), was filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the class action complaint:
Throughout the Class Period, [Impinj] Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about [Impinj’s] business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that [Impinj] had engaged in conduct that could lead to an employee complaint and/or Audit Committee investigation; (2) that [Impinj] lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Impinj’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the [Impinj’s] securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages (emphasis added).
Impinj Investors & Shareholders
If you purchased or acquired shares of PI between May 7, 2018 and August 2, 2018, inclusive, and would like to speak privately with a securities attorney to learn more about the securities investigation or your legal rights as an investor, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., [email protected], [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, or complete the form above on the right.
Jul 23, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
On July 23, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the SEC charged Mizuho Securities USA LLC for its failure to safeguard information pertaining to stock buybacks by its issuer customers. Mizuho, according to the SEC, failed to maintain and enforce policies and procedures aimed at preventing the misuse of material nonpublic information, including maintaining effective information barriers between different trading desks and requiring employees to keep client information confidential. Mizuho agreed to settle the charges and will pay a $1.25 million penalty.
According to the SEC’s order, during a two-year period, Mizuho traders regularly disclosed material nonpublic customer buyback information to other traders and Mizuho’s hedge fund clients. That information included the identity of the party placing the order, the order size, limit price, and indications that the orders were buyback orders. Such information was routinely communicated across trading desks, notwithstanding that during the relevant period Mizuho executed over 99.8% of all buyback orders by using algorithms, rather than through trader-negotiated open market trades.
The SEC’s order, among other things, stated:
As a result of these failures, during the Relevant Period, Mizuho’s execution and sales traders received confidential issuer buyback trade information on nearly every day that Mizuho executed buyback trades. Moreover, the head execution trader on Mizuho’s U.S. Equity Trading Desk was given direct access to Mizuho’s International Trading Desk’s order management system, which included buyback purchase trade orders, and he also routinely disseminated such information to traders on his desk.
In addition, on several occasions, Mizuho execution and sales traders disclosed to certain firm customers nonpublic customer buyback order information. The information often included the order size, the limit price, and key terms that indicated to the recipients that the orders were issuer buyback orders. This trade information was valuable to other market participants, particularly given that the party placing the trade was the issuer. Moreover, many of the issuer buyback orders that Mizuho handled during the Relevant Period comprised a significant portion of the daily trading volume in the stocks being bought back, which increased the potential impact of the buyback orders on the prices of those stocks.
“Confidential information concerning issuer stock buybacks can be material to institutional investors, particularly when such trading comprises a significant portion of the daily trading volume in the stock being repurchased,” said Antonia Chion, Associate Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement. “Broker-dealers must be attentive to their responsibilities to maintain and enforce policies and procedures to prevent the misuse of such information.”
The SEC’s order finds that Mizuho willfully violated Section 15(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Mizuho consented to the order imposing a $1.25 million penalty, a censure, and ordering it to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations.
Source: SEC.gov
Jul 20, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
Improper Handling of “Pre-Released” American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”)
On July 20, 2018, the SEC announced that two U.S.-based subsidiaries of Deutsche Bank AG will pay nearly $75 million to settle charges of improper handling of “pre-released” ADRs.
The case, according to the SEC, stems from a continuing SEC investigation into abuses involving pre-released ADRs. In proceedings against Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas (DBTCA), a depositary bank, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (DBSI), a registered broker-dealer, the SEC found that their misconduct allowed pre-released ADRs to be used for abusive practices, including inappropriate short selling and inappropriate profiting around dividend payouts.
ADRs, which are U.S. securities that represent foreign shares of a foreign company, require a corresponding number of foreign shares to be held in custody at a depositary bank. The practice of “pre-release” allows ADRs to be issued without the deposit of foreign shares, provided brokers receiving them have an agreement with a depositary bank and the broker or its customer owns the number of foreign shares that corresponds to the number of shares the ADR represents.
In the order against DBTCA, the SEC found that it improperly provided thousands of pre-released ADRs over a more than five-year period when neither the broker nor its customers had the requisite shares. The order against DBSI found that its policies, procedures, and supervision failed to prevent and detect securities laws violations concerning borrowing and lending pre-released ADRs, involving approximately 850 transactions over more than three years.
Last year, the SEC announced settled charges against brokers ITG Inc. and Banca IMI Securities Corp., which at times obtained pre-released ADRs from DBTCA and other depositaries and lent them to other brokers, including DBSI. The SEC also charged a former managing director and head of operations at broker-dealer ITG for failing to supervise personnel on ITG’s securities lending desk who improperly handled pre-released ADRs.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, DBTCA agreed to return more than $44.4 million of alleged ill-gotten gains plus $6.6 million in prejudgment interest and a more than $22.2 million penalty, nearly $73.3 million in total. DBSI, also without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, agreed to pay nearly $1.6 million, representing $1.1 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a nearly $500,000 penalty. The SEC’s orders acknowledge each entity’s cooperation in the investigation and remedial acts.
Source: SEC.gov
Jul 12, 2018 | Whistleblower
On July 12, 2018, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced an award of approximately $30 million to a whistleblower who voluntarily provided key original information that led to a successful enforcement action. The award is the largest award made by the CFTC’s Whistleblower Program to date and is the fifth award made by the program.
“The Whistleblower Program has become an integral component in the agency’s enforcement arsenal,” said CFTC Chairman, J. Christopher Giancarlo. “We hope that an award of this magnitude will incentivize whistleblowers to come forward with valuable information and provide notice to market participants that individuals are reporting quality information about violations of the Commodity Exchange Act [CEA].”
The CFTC’s Whistleblower Program was created by section 748 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act). The CFTC pays monetary awards to eligible whistleblowers who voluntarily provide the CFTC with original information on violations of the CEA that leads the CFTC to bring a successful enforcement action resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000.
By law, the CFTC protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not disclose information that might directly or indirectly reveal a whistleblower’s identity. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, employers may not retaliate against whistleblowers for reporting possible violations of the CEA to the CFTC.
Whistleblowers are eligible to receive between 10 percent and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected. 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.
Previously, the highest award amount paid to a CFTC whistleblower was in March 2016 of more than $10 million (see CFTC Press Release 7351-16, CFTC Announces Whistleblower Award of More Than $10 Million).
Source: CFTC.gov
