Mar 6, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Class Action Filed on Behalf of Purchasers and Acquirers of Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. American Depositary Receipts Between April 11, 2013 and January 25, 2018, Both Dates Inclusive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. continues its investigation of securities claims on behalf of Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. American Depositary Receipt shareholders and reports that a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Grupo Televisa ADRs (NYSE: TV) between April 11, 2013 and January 25, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). The class action lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Grupo Televisa ADR investors of under the federal securities laws.
Grupo Televisa’s Alleged Materially False and Misleading Statements Regarding Its Business, Operational, and Compliance Policies
According to the class action complaint, during the Class Period, Mexico City, Mexico-based Grupo Televisa
. . . made materially false and misleading statements regarding [Grupo Televisa’s] business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, [the Grupo Televisa] Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Televisa executives engaged in unlawful bribery schemes involving Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) executives; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject [Televisa] to heightened regulatory scrutiny; (iii) [Televisa] lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Televisa’s ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and damages.
Grupo Televisa ADR Shareholders and Investors
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Grupo Televisa ADRs and have questions or concerns about the securities investigation or your potential legal rights, please contact John A. Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
GRUPO TELEVISA ADR SHAREHOLDERS WHO WISH TO SERVE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF MUST MOVE THE COURT TO SEEK APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF NO LATER THAN MAY 4, 2018.
NO CLASS HAS BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AT THIS TIME.
Mar 5, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Build A Dream’s Alleged Telemarketing Calls in Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
On February 16, 2018, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) was filed against “construction lender” Build A Dream, Inc. in United States District Court, Central District of California, “seeking damages and other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, [Build A Dream, Inc.] . . . in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s home telephone in violation of the [TCPA] . . . and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff’s privacy.”
According to the complaint, “[b]eginning as early as January of 2015, and continuing on through 2017, [Build A Dream] contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s home telephone number . . . in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase [Build A Dream’s] services.”
In July 2003, the Plaintiff’s home telephone number was added to the National Do Not Call Registry, and Build A Dream, allegedly, contacted or attempted to contact the Plaintiff from the following Build A Dream-related telephone numbers: (626) 238-0582, (626) 238-0317, (626) 238-1583, (626) 238-1033, (626) 238-0289, (626) 238-0272, (626) 238-0527, (626) 427-2291, (626) 427-9644, (626) 427-0246, and (626) 427-0229.
Further, the class action complaint alleges that Build A Dream’s telephone calls to the Plaintiff were “not for emergency purposes” and “were an attempt to promote or sell [Build A Dream’s] services.” The Plaintiff “did not have an established business relationship with [Build A Dream] during the time of the solicitation calls from [Build A Dream],” and Build A Dream “continued to call Plaintiff,” despite the Plaintiff having “expressly asked [Build A Dream] to stop calling in one of [Build A Dream’s] earlier phone calls.”
Among other relief, the class action seeks statutory damages of $500 for each TCPA violation, as well as triple, or treble, damages of $1,500 for each knowing or willful TCPA violation.
Have You Received Unsolicited, Unwanted or Harassing Telemarketing Calls or Autodial, Automated or Prerecorded “Robocalls” or Text Messages to Your Cellular Telephone from Telemarketers, Banks or Credit Card, Mortgage, Student Loan or Other Companies Without Your Prior Express Consent?
Have You Received Debt Collection Robocalls On Your Cellular Telephone Where You Requested Not to Receive, or Opted-Out from Receiving, Automated Debt Collection Calls?
Have You Received “Junk Fax” Advertisements That You Did Not Consent to Receive?
If so, you may have grounds to bring a private right of action, or lawsuit, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to try and recover statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each TCPA violation. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney at no cost or obligation to you about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Mar 5, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
WageWorks, Inc. Files Notification of Late Filing – WAGE Concludes It Has Material Weakness in Its Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
On March 1, 2018, WageWorks, Inc. (NYSE: WAGE), “a leader in administering Consumer-Directed Benefits,” issued an announcement disclosing that WAGE “is delaying its Annual Report on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2017 and its financial results and associated conference call for the fourth quarter of 2017.”
On this news, WAGE Stock Dropped $9.75, or more than 18%, to close at $42.70 per share on March 1, 2018.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
WAGE’s Notification of Late Filing (SEC Form 12B-25)
On March 2, 2018, WageWorks filed a Notification of Late Filing with the SEC, which stated that WAGE
. . . is unable, without unreasonable effort or expense, to file its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 within the prescribed time period because it requires additional time to complete its financial statements and its assessment of [WAGE’s] internal control over financial reporting; accordingly, [WAGE’s] independent registered accounting firm, KPMG LLP (“KPMG”), has not yet completed its audits of [WAGE’s] financial statements and [WAGE’s] internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017. [WageWorks] does not currently expect to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K by the prescribed due date allowed pursuant to Rule 12b-25.
[WageWorks] has concluded that it has a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017 related to managing change and assessing risk in the areas of non-routine and complex transactions. As a result of the material weakness, [WageWorks] has concluded that its internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures were ineffective as of December 31, 2017. [WageWorks] is in the process of designing processes and controls to address this material weakness. [WageWorks] intends to disclose more detailed description of this weakness, including a plan for remediating this deficiency, in the 2017 Form 10-K.
The Audit Committee of [WAGE’s] Board of Directors is conducting an independent investigation of [WAGE’s] internal control over financial reporting in fiscal 2016 and 2017. Among other matters, the investigation consists of a review of certain issues, including revenue recognition, related to the accounting for a government contract during fiscal 2016 and associated issues with whether there was an open flow of information and appropriate tone at the top for an effective control environment.
Additionally, the Audit Committee investigation of accounting and internal control matters is ongoing and may ultimately result in the identification of other accounting issues, further material weaknesses, and/or require the restatement of [WAGE’s] financial statements for previous periods. (Emphasis added)
WageWorks Investors & Shareholders
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, WAGE stock shares and have questions or concerns about the securities investigation or your potential legal rights, please contact John A. Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Mar 4, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
PayPal Settles FTC Charges Regarding Venmo’s Failure to Disclose Information to Consumers About the Ability to Transfer Funds and Misleading Consumers About the Extent to Which Consumers Could Control the Privacy of Their Transactions
The Federal Trade Commission announced that it has reached a settlement with PayPal, Inc. over allegations that PayPal told users of its Venmo peer-to-peer payment service that money credited to their Venmo balances could be transferred to external bank accounts without adequately disclosing that the transactions were still subject to review and that funds could be frozen or removed.
The FTC’s complaint also charges Venmo with misleading consumers about the extent to which they could control the privacy of their transactions. Additionally, PayPal-operated Venmo, “a payment and social networking application and website that allows consumers to make peer-to-peer payments and to share information regarding such payments through a social network feed,” allegedly, misrepresented the extent to which consumers’ financial accounts were protected by “bank grade security systems” and violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Safeguards and Privacy Rules.
Venmo Allegedly Aware of Consumer Confusion, “User Frustration,” and Financial Loss
According to the FTC’s complaint (In the Matter of PayPal, Inc.):
Many thousands of consumers have complained to Venmo about the delays or loss of funds from their Venmo balance when they tried to transfer funds to their bank accounts. News articles from several media outlets since at least 2015 have highlighted the harm to consumers, which is sometimes in the thousands of dollars. Many consumers have reported suffering significant financial hardship due to not being able to transfer funds, including the inability to pay rent or bills with funds they expected to transfer out of Venmo. Other consumers have relied on the notifications indicating a sender paid them and supplied event tickets or other valuable items to the sender in exchange for funds, and consequently incurred a financial loss when Venmo removed the funds from their balance. In numerous instances, consumers who have attempted to contact Venmo have been unable to reach a representative or have not been provided with an explanation for or resolution to the problem with their account.
Internal company emails also have demonstrated that at least as early as mid-2015 Venmo was aware of “user frustration” and confusion experienced by consumers whose accounts were frozen or who suffered financial loss when transactions were reversed. Nevertheless, Venmo has continued representing, without qualification, that once money is credited to consumers’ Venmo accounts, consumers can transfer the money to their bank accounts.
Venmo Allegedly Failed to Disclose that Consumer Funds Could Be Frozen or Removed Based on the Results of Venmo’s Review of the Underlying Transaction
According to the FTC’s complaint, Venmo sent its users notifications that money had been credited to their Venmo balances and was available for transfer to an external bank account. The FTC, however, says that Venmo failed to disclose that these funds could be frozen or removed based on the results of Venmo’s review of the underlying transaction. As a result, consumers complained that, at times, Venmo delayed the withdrawal of funds or reversed the underlying transactions after initially notifying them that the funds were available.
Venmo Allegedly Misled Consumers About the Extent of Transaction Privacy
The FTC also alleges that Venmo misled consumers about the extent to which they could keep transactions private. By default, some information about transactions between users is displayed on Venmo’s social news feed. Venmo offers privacy settings that enable consumers to limit who can view such transactions, but Venmo misled consumers about how those settings work.
According to the complaint, a Venmo consumer who limits their “default audience” for “future transactions” has not ensured that their transactions will remain private, unless they also change a second setting. Unless the consumer changes both settings, certain transactions may still be shared publicly. Also, unless that second setting is changed, where a consumer has specifically chosen to keep a particular transaction private, the other participant in the transaction can override the consumer’s privacy choices and retroactively make a private transaction public. According to the complaint, Venmo, at times, misrepresented what steps were necessary to keep transactions private and, in any case, failed to adequately disclose these facts to consumers.
Venmo Allegedly Misrepresented the Extent of Security Provided to Consumer Financial Accounts & Violated Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Safeguards and Privacy Rules
The FTC also alleges that, until at least March 2015, Venmo misrepresented the extent of security it provided to consumer financial accounts, claiming that it utilized “bank-grade security systems.” The FTC alleges, however, that through at least August 2014, Venmo did not have a written information security program. Until at least March 2015, Venmo failed to notify users when their password or e-mail address had been changed, or when a new device had been added to their account. As a result, unauthorized users were able to withdraw funds from consumer accounts – without Venmo notifying consumers. In addition, Venmo lacked adequate customer support to respond to consumer complaints about these incidents.
Additionally, the FTC alleges that Venmo violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Safeguards Rule, which requires financial institutions to implement safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of customer information, and Privacy Rule, which requires financial institutions to deliver privacy notices to customers.
As part of the proposed settlement with the FTC, Venmo is prohibited from misrepresenting any material restrictions on the use of its service, the extent of control provided by any privacy settings, and the extent to which Venmo implements or adheres to a particular level of security. Venmo is also required to make certain disclosures to consumers about its transaction and privacy practices, in addition to being prohibited from violating the Privacy and Safeguards Rules. Consistent with several past cases involving violations of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Rules, Venmo is required to obtain biennial third-party assessments of its compliance with these rules for 10 years.
For additional information, please see In the Matter of PayPal, Inc.
Source: FTC.gov
Mar 4, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
U.K. Brokerage Firm, Investment Manager, CEO, and Others Charged by SEC for Manipulating the Securities of Microcap Issuers HD View 360 Inc. and West Coast Ventures Group Corp.
On March 2, 2018, the SEC announced securities fraud charges against a U.K.-based broker-dealer and its investment manager in connection with manipulative trading in the securities of HD View 360 Inc., a U.S.-based microcap issuer. Charges were also announced against HD View’s CEO, another individual, and three entities they control for manipulating HD View’s securities, as well as the securities of another microcap issuer, West Coast Ventures Group Corp. Additionally, the SEC announced that an order suspending trading in the securities of HD View was instituted.
SEC’s Charges and FBI Undercover Operation Resulting in Criminal Prosecutions
The SEC’s charges stem, in part, from an undercover FBI operation, which also resulted in related criminal prosecutions against these defendants by the United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York.
The SEC’s Complaint Against Beaufort Securities and Peter Kyriacou
In a complaint filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, the SEC alleges that Beaufort Securities Ltd. (“Beaufort”) and Peter Kyriacou (“Kyriacou”), an investment manager at Beaufort, manipulated the market for HD View’s common stock. The scheme involved an undercover FBI agent who described his business as manipulating U.S. stocks through pump-and-dump schemes. Kyriacou and the undercover FBI agent discussed depositing large blocks of microcap stock in Beaufort accounts, driving up the price of the stock through promotions, manipulating the stock’s price and volume through matched trades, and then selling the shares for a large profit.
Allegedly, Beaufort and Kyriacou:
- Opened brokerage accounts for the undercover FBI agent in the names of nominees in order to conceal his identity and his connection to the anticipated trading activity in the accounts.
- Suggested that the undercover FBI agent could create the false appearance that HD View’s stock was liquid in advance of a pump-and-dump by “gam[ing] the market” through matched trades.
- Executed multiple purchase orders of HD View shares with the understanding that Beaufort’s client had arranged for an associate to simultaneously offer an equivalent number of shares at the same price.
The SEC’s Complaint Against HD View CEO Dennis Mancino, William Hirschy, DJK Investments 10 Inc., TJM Investments Inc. & WT Consulting Group, LLC
A second complaint filed by the SEC in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that in a series of recorded telephone conversations with the undercover FBI agent, HD View CEO Dennis Mancino (“Mancino”) and William T. Hirschy (“Hirschy”) agreed to manipulate HD View’s common stock by using the undercover agent’s network of brokers to generate fraudulent retail demand for the stock in exchange for a kickback from the trading proceeds. According to the complaint, the three men agreed that Mancino and Hirschy would manipulate HD View stock to a higher price before using the undercover agent’s brokers to liquidate their positions at an artificially inflated price. The SEC’s complaint also alleges that Mancino and Hirschy executed a “test trade” on Jan. 31, 2018, coordinated by the undercover FBI agent, consisting of a sell order placed by the defendants filled by an opposing purchase order placed by a broker into an account at Beaufort.
Mancino and Hirschy, however, were not aware that the Beaufort account used for this trade was a nominal account that was opened and funded by the agent. The SEC’s complaint also alleges that, prior to their contact with the undercover agent, Mancino and Hirschy manipulated the market for HD View and for West Coast by using brokerage accounts that they owned, controlled, or were associated with –including TJM Investments Inc., DJK Investments 10 Inc., WT Consulting Group LLC – to effect manipulative “matched trades.”
The SEC’s complaint against Beaufort and Kyriacou charges the defendants with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC also charged Hirschy, Mancino, and their corporate entities with violating Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 9(a)(1), 9(a)(2), and 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder.
The SEC is seeking injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, penalties, and penny stock bars from Beaufort and Kyriacou. With respect to Hirschy, Mancino, and their corporate entities, the SEC is seeking injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, penalties, penny stock bars, and an officer-and-director bar against Mancino.
Source: SEC.gov
