May 17, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Equifax Information Services, LLC Subject of Class Action Alleging Equifax Does Not Follow Reasonable Procedures to Ensure the Timely Gathering and Reporting of Updated Public Record Information, Such as the Release, Satisfaction or Removal of Tax Liens or Judgments, in Consumer Reports
On May 14, 2018, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, against Equifax seeking, among other things, statutory and punitive damages, for Equifax’s alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as a result of Equifax’s reckless disregard for consumer’s rights by failing to adopt reasonable procedures to timely gather and report updated public record information reflecting the disposition, or satisfaction, of such things as tax liens and judgments. As a result of its conduct, the complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania-based Plaintiff and putative class members suffered reputational harm, reduced credit scores, and an increased risk of being denied credit.
Equifax’s Failure to Timely Gather Updated Information Regarding Derogatory Information in Credit Reports
According to the complaint:
Equifax is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. As part of this process, Equifax uses an automated and systematic procedure to gather and report derogatory public records in credit reports, such as tax liens and judgments. However, Equifax does not follow similar procedures to gather updated information about when the tax lien or judgment is released, satisfied, vacated or otherwise removed. Equifax’s failure to timely gather updated information is a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) because Equifax has not implemented reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer reports that it furnished regarding Plaintiff and the putative class members. (Emphasis added)
Despite no affirmative requirement in the FCRA, Equifax proactively seeks out and purchases public records data, including Pennsylvania tax liens and civil judgments, to include in the credit reports it sells. Equifax, however, “does not follow reasonable procedures to gather information when the tax liens or judgments are released, satisfied, vacated, appealed, or similarly dismissed, with the same rigor and process that it employs to gather information initially.”
Allegedly, the third-party vendor Equifax engages to collect judgment and tax lien information “was only obligated to collect and provide updates and dispositions if the vendor determined it was ‘commercially reasonable’ to do so.” Further, according to the complaint:
As a matter of common policy, Equifax and its vendors rarely collect any tax lien or judgment disposition information.
In short, Equifax published public records data that it knew would be inaccurate if a release, satisfaction, dismissal, vacatur or appeal had occurred—relying on consumers to clean up their own files via the dispute process after learning of the inaccuracy, rather than paying to have these dispositions collected with the same vigor that it collected records of the initial entry of judgment. (Emphasis added)
The Pennsylvania Plaintiff’s Equifax Experience
On or about January 4, 2013, a Pennsylvania state tax lien was filed against the Plaintiff. In March 2016, the Plaintiff sent payment in full to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, and the lien was satisfied in March 2016. In August 2016, a copy of the lien release was filed. In February 2017, a copy of the Plaintiff’s Equifax report was pulled by Quicken Loans. The Equifax report incorrectly reflected that the Plaintiff’s lien was unpaid and not satisfied.
Despite the fact that the tax lien was satisfied and reflected as such on Pennsylvania public records, Equifax did not remove the tax lien public record from the Plaintiff’s credit report or update the credit report to show the lien as satisfied, released or paid. If the company followed the FCRA, which requires a consumer reporting agency to follow reasonable procedures “to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates,” Equifax would have conducted a simple, free online public records search and reported an update to the public record reflecting that the Plaintiff’s lien was satisfied.
Consumers: Does Your Consumer Report Contain a Tax Lien or Other Civil Judgment Error?
If your consumer report from Experian, TransUnion or Equifax reflects a satisfied tax lien or other civil judgment as unpaid, not satisfied or not released, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. by completing the form above on the right, sending an e-mail to [email protected] or by contacting Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], to discuss your potential legal rights.
May 17, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm reports that its securities investigation of Prothena Corporation continues, and that on May 15, 2018, a securities class-action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, against Prothena Corporation (NASDAQ: PRTA) and certain of its current and former executive officers on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Prothena’s publicly-traded common stock between October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The class action complaint against Prothena and certain of Prothena’s senior executives allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.
Investors Who Purchased the Securities of Prothena Between October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018 Are Encouraged to Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. To Discuss the Class Action Investigation and Potential Legal Options. Prothena investors have until July 16, 2018 to File a Motion with the Court to Serve as Lead Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, the class action against Prothena
. . . arises from Defendants misrepresentations and material omissions regarding NEOD001’s clinical trial results and prospects for approval. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants cited the “best response” results of Prothena’s ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical study of NEOD001 as evidence that the drug was effective, while withholding relevant trial data showing that NEOD001 was not an effective treatment for AL amyloidosis. In addition, Defendants made misleading comparisons of NEOD001’s “best response” rates against prior studies that measured sustained responses after a specified period of time, and falsely told investors that Prothena’s ongoing Phase 1/2 study provided a strong basis for late-stage Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies of NEOD001. In truth, the full Phase 1/2 study data demonstrated that NEOD001 was not an effective treatment for AL amyloidosis and did not provide an adequate basis for the late-stage Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies. (Emphasis added)
Further, the complaint states:
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants continued to tout the interim results of the Company’s Phase 1/2 study to create the impression that NEOD001 would obtain final approval after completion of its late-stage Phase 2b PRONTO and Phase 3 VITAL studies. For example, on September 12, 2016, during the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference, Defendant Tran B. Nguyen . . ., the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, stated that the “exciting findings” from the Phase 1/2 expansion study “has to go back to what does it say about PRONTO and VITAL.” Analysts accepted Defendants’ positive statements regarding NEOD001’s efficacy and the Phase 1/2 study results[] and viewed the Company’s Phase 1/2 study results as indicative of the likely success of the ongoing Phase 2b and Phase 3 trials. For example, on December 5, 2016, a Credit Suisse analyst noted that the final Phase 1/2 study results helped “derisk the ongoing PRONTO and VITAL studies.”
In truth, Prothena’s “best response” analyses did not present a fair representation of the efficacy of NEOD001, particularly when compared to prior studies. What Prothena referred to as the “best response” rate was selected by the Company from among all the data points in their study. After cherry-picking the best response among the available data points for each patient, Prothena then compared that result to studies that used a single data point at the end of a predetermined length of time, creating a false impression that NEOD001 was effective. Prothena never disclosed the full results of its Phase 1/2 testing – namely, the month-to-month response rate of each patient during the study – which would have permitted investors to conduct a fair comparison against the historical data. (Emphasis added)
Prothena Announces Discontinuance of Development of Drug for Treatment of AL Amyloidosis
On April 23, 2018, Prothena Corporation announced that it
. . . is discontinuing development of NEOD001, an investigational antibody that was being evaluated for the treatment of AL amyloidosis. The decision was based on results from the Phase 2b PRONTO study and a futility analysis of the Phase 3 VITAL study.
Based on the results from the Phase 2b PRONTO study, which did not meet its primary or secondary endpoints, [Prothena] asked the independent data monitoring committee (DMC) of the Phase 3 VITAL study to review a futility analysis of the ongoing VITAL study. The DMC recommended discontinuation of the VITAL study for futility. [Prothena] therefore decided to discontinue all development of NEOD001, including the VITAL study as well as the open label extension studies. (Emphasis added)
Prothena Stock Drops $25.34, or 68.78%, to Close at $11.50 on April 23, 2018
Based on Prothena’s announcement regarding the discontinuance of the development of NEOD001, Prothena’s stock dropped almost 70%, thereby injuring investors.
Prothena Investors and Shareholders
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Prothena stock during the Class Period and have questions or concerns about the class action lawsuit or your potential legal rights, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Investors who purchased Prothena stock during the Class Period and suffered damages have until July 16, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. 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.
May 11, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. reports that on May 10, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against InnerWorkings, Inc. (NASDAQ:INWK) and certain of its officers in United States District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of a class of investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the securities of InnerWorkings between August 11, 2015 and May 7, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The class action complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) InnerWorkings’ financial statements for the years ending December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, as well as all interim periods, contained errors that required restating; and (ii) as a result, InnerWorkings’ financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The class action seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Investors Who Purchased the Securities of Innerworkings Between August 11, 2015 and May 7, 2018 Are Encouraged to Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. To Discuss the Class Action Lawsuit and Their Potential Legal Options. Investors Who Purchased the Stock of InnerWorkings Have Until July 9, 2018 To Seek Appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
InnerWorkings Files Form 8-K “Non-Reliance on Previously Issued Financial Statements or a Related Audit Report or Completed Interim Review”
On May 7, 2018, InnerWorkings reported in a Form 8-K filing that its Audit Committee of the Board of Directors
. . . concluded that [InnerWorkings] will postpone the release of its first quarter 2018 financial results and conference call due to errors in [its] historical financial statements identified by [InnerWorkings] during the course of its first quarter financial reporting close process. The Company will be restating its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, and all interim periods within those years. Accordingly, investors should no longer rely upon the Company’s previously issued financial statements for these periods, any earnings releases or other communications relating to these periods, or projections or estimates for any future periods. This decision was reached after discussions with the Company’s senior management and outside advisors. (Emphasis added)
InnerWorkings’ Form 8-K filing also stated that
[b]ecause of the Company’s ongoing review of certain adjustments, [InnerWorkings] requires additional time to complete an analysis of all necessary adjustments and to determine the extent of the corrections that may be required to its historical financial statements. Based on its preliminary assessment, [InnerWorkings] estimates the aggregate impact of these corrections on income before income taxes as follows:
- For the year ended December 31, 2017, a decrease in income before income taxes of $2.5 – $4.5 million;
- For the year ended December 31, 2016, a decrease in income before income taxes of $1.5 – $2.5 million; and
- For the year ended December 31, 2015, an increase in income before income taxes of $0.5 – $1.5 million
[InnerWorkings] has previously concluded in certain of the periods requiring restatement that its controls over financial reporting were effective. In certain of the other periods, including as of December 31, 2017, the Company previously concluded that its controls over financial reporting were ineffective due to material weaknesses in certain internal controls. As a result of the material weakness relating to the restatement described above, the Company has now concluded that its controls over financial reporting were ineffective in all of the aforementioned periods. Accordingly, the Company will restate its disclosures for the affected periods to include the identification of a material weakness related to its restatement. The Company is actively engaged in remediating the material weaknesses. (Emphasis added)
INWK Stock Drops on the News of the Company’s Historical Financial Statement Errors
On the news of INWK’s delay in reporting its Q1 2018 financials and the need to restate its financials, the share price of InnerWorkings fell $.062, or 6.4%, to close at $9.06 on May 8, 2018.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
Investors and Shareholders of InnerWorkings
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, the securities of InnerWorkings during the Class Period and have questions or concerns about the class action lawsuit or your potential legal rights, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Investors who purchased InnerWorkings’ securities during the Class Period and suffered damages have until July 9, 2018 to file a motion with the Court to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. 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.
May 11, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. has commenced a securities investigation on behalf of Symantec Corporation (NASDAQ: SYMC) investors to determine whether Symantec or its officers violated federal securities laws or were involved in other unlawful business practices.
Symantec’s Financial Results and Guidance May Be Subject to Change Based on Its Internal Investigation
On May 10, 2018, Symantec issued a press release reporting its “Fiscal Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2018 Results,” which stated, in pertinent part:
The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors has commenced an internal investigation in connection with concerns raised by a former employee. The Audit Committee has retained independent counsel and other advisors to assist it in its investigation. The Company has voluntarily contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission to advise it that an internal investigation is underway, and the Audit Committee intends to provide additional information to the SEC as the investigation proceeds. The investigation is in its early stages and the Company cannot predict the duration or outcome of the investigation. [Symantec’s] financial results and guidance may be subject to change based on the outcome of the Audit Committee investigation. It is unlikely that the investigation will be completed in time for the Company to file its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 30, 2018 in a timely manner. (Emphasis added)
Symantec Stock Drops Significantly During After-Hours Trading on May 10, 2018
On the news of Symantec’s internal investigation, SYMC’s shares dropped significantly. According to TheStreet:
Symantec . . . shares plunged in pre-market trading Friday after the cyber security firm said an internal investigation could delay the filing of it[s] annual report and alter its weaker-than-expected sales and earnings forecasts.
Symantec, which makes the Norton Antivirus and LifeLock security services, said concerns raised by a former employee, which it did not provide further detail, prompted the probe and that it had retained independent counsel and notified the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The revelation followed the Mountainview, Calif.-based group’s first quarter earnings report, which included a softer-than-anticipated full year revenue forecast of between $4.76 billion and $4.9 billion and earnings of between $1.50 and $1.65 per share.
. . .
Symantec shares plummeted 24.3% in pre-market trading Friday, indicating an opening bell price of $22.09 each, a move that would lop more than $4.2 billion from the company’s market value and pull the stock to the lowest level since August 2016. (Emphasis added)
Symantec Stockholders & Investors
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Symantec securities and have questions or concerns about Kehoe Law Firm’s securities investigation or your potential legal claims, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
May 10, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on May 7, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Spreemo, Inc. and The Hartford Financial Services Group for allegedly sending at least one advertisement by facsimile to Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The fax advertisement, according to the complaint, was sent to Plaintiff without his prior express consent to receive an advertisement via fax from the Defendants. Further, the Plaintiff, allegedly, did not have an established business relationship with Spreemo and The Hartford Financial Services Group.
According to the class action complaint, Spreemo, “a healthcare platform or vendor that connects patients and their insurers with diagnostic testing providers,” and The Hartford Financial Services Group, “an insurance company providing employee benefits, among other insurance products,” “sent advertisements by facsimile to Plaintiff and more than 39 persons in violation of the TCPA.” The faxed advertisements promoted “Spreemo’s services locating and recommending radiological imaging providers for The Hartford patients.”
The TCPA class action, filed on behalf of a class of all persons or entities which received one or more fax messages “promoting Spreemo’s services locating and recommending radiological imaging providers for The Hartford patients,” seeks, among other things, statutory damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (5:18-cv-01902-LS), and a copy of the one-page “Spreemo Health”-related fax received by Plaintiff and listed as an exhibit in the complaint can be viewed by clicking here.
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.
