Mar 3, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Against University of Phoenix and Apollo Education Group for Alleged Unsolicited, Prerecorded Telemarketing Messages on Behalf of The University of Phoenix
On February 28, 2018, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act (“IATDA”) was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against The University of Phoenix, Inc. and The Apollo Education Group, Inc. for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief. The class action lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff Terrance Williams, an Illinois resident, to “. . . redress Defendants’ [i.e., The University of Phoenix and its “parent company,” The Apollo Education Group] unlawful conduct in autodialing [Plaintiff’s] cellular telephone number without his consent to deliver unsolicited, prerecorded telemarketing messages on behalf of ‘The University of Phoenix’.”
According to the TCPA class action complaint, in 2017, University of Phoenix and/or Apollo Education Group called the Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number and delivered an “unsolicited advertisement” to encourage Plaintiff to “purchase” educational “services.” When the Plaintiff answered some calls placed by University of Phoenix and/or Apollo Education Group, there was a “period of silence followed by an automated click at which point the call would sometimes connect to a human.”
The Plaintiff, allegedly, also received prerecorded messages which advertised or promoted University of Phoenix’s and/or Apollo Education Group’s educational services. “The pre-recorded messages played or left on Plaintiff’s cellular phone and/or voice mail did not comply with 47 CFR § 64.1200(b)(3) because none of the prerecorded messages contained language identifying the ability of Plaintiff to opt-out of future prerecorded messages.”
The Plaintiff, allegedly, never provided his cell phone number or prior express written consent to permit telemarketing messages to his cellular phone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and predictive dialer, as these terms are defined, respectively, by the TCPA and the FCC. “Plaintiff never consented to receiving a ‘telephone solicitation’ calls from Defendants and never expressly consented (in writing or otherwise) to allow Defendants to call his cellular telephone number with an ‘automatic telephone dialing system’ or ‘artificial or prerecorded voice.’”
The class action against University of Phoenix and Apollo Education Group seeks, among other things, statutory damages of at least $500 and up to $1,500 for each TCPA or IATDA violation.
Have You Received Unsolicited, Unwanted or Harassing Autodial, Automated or Prerecorded “Robocalls” or Text Messages to Your Cellular Telephone from Telemarketers, Banks or Credit Card, Mortgage, Student Loan or Other Companies on Your Cell Phone 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 2, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Shareholders and Investors of Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. Who Purchased UBNT Common Stock Between May 9, 2013 and February 20, 2018, Both Dates Inclusive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Ubiquiti Networks and reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the securities of Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: UBNT) between May 9, 2013 and February 20, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). The class action lawsuit, which was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, seeks to recover damages for investors of Ubiquiti Networks under the federal securities laws.
Ubiquiti shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff MUST move the Court to seek appointment as lead plaintiff no later than April 23, 2018.
During the class period, the Ubiquiti defendants, according to the class action lawsuit, made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that that the size of Ubiquiti’s purported user community was drastically overstated; Ubiquiti had exaggerated its publicly reported accounts receivable; and as a result, Ubiquiti’s publicly-disseminated financial statements were materially false and misleading. When the true details entered the market, the class action lawsuit claims that UBNT investors suffered damages.
According to the UBNT class action complaint:
Ubiquiti Networks is a company whith “. . . develops technology platforms for high-capacity distributed Internet access, unified information technology, and next-generation consumer electronics for home and personal use.” [Ubiquiti Networks] does not employ a traditional sales force. Instead, it purports to ‘drive[] brand awareness largely through the company’s user community where customers can interface directly with R&D, marketing, and support.’ [Ubiquiti Networks] calls this user community the ‘Ubiquiti Community.’”
Information previously disclosed to the market revealed that the size of the “Ubiquiti Community” was grossly exaggerated, and that the Company has engaged in fraudulent accounting practices and financial reporting.
On February 20, 2018, Ubiquiti filed a [F]orm 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission that said, in material part:
On February 13, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission . . . issued subpoenas to Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. . . . and certain of [Ubiquiti’s] officers requesting documents and information relating to a range of topics, including metrics relating to the Ubiquiti Community, accounting practices, financial information, auditors, international trade practices, and relationships with distributors and various other third parties.
On the news of the SEC subpoenas, Ubiquiti’s share price fell more than 25 percent, from $74.04 at the close of the prior trading day, to close at $55.28 on February 20, 2018. (Emphasis added)
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
The class action complaint also stated that
[p]rior to disclosure of the SEC’s . . . subpoenas, there was a partial corrective disclosure on September 18, 2017. On that day Citron Research . . . issued a report entitled “Cintron Exposes Ubiquiti Networks,” . . . in which Citron [Research] detailed a series of “alarming red flags,” indicating that [Ubiquiti Networks] had been deceiving investors and was engaged in “corporate fraud,” including, among other things, that [Ubiquiti Networks] had been deceiving investors and was engaged in “corporate fraud,” including, among other things, that [Ubiquiti] had misrepresented the size of its purported “Ubiquiti Community”, as well as its levels of accounts receivable, among other things.
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. Shareholders and Investors
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, UBNT 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].
PLEASE NOTE: 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 2, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
Three-Time Recidivist Charged with Operating an Unregistered Broker-Dealer, Facilitating an Unregistered Securities Offering, and Defrauding Small Businesses
On March 1, 2018, the SEC issued a litigation release regarding Securities and Exchange Commission v. Steven J. Muehler, Claudia M. Muehler, Koorosh “Danny” Rahimi, AltaVista Capital Markets, LLC, AltaVista Private Client, LLC, and AltaVista Securities, LLC, No. 18-cv-01677 (C.D. Cal., filed February 28, 2018). According to the SEC’s litigation release:
Three-time recidivist Steven J. Muehler (“Muehler”) was charged with operating an unregistered broker-dealer, facilitating an unregistered securities offering, and defrauding small businesses, while promising to help them raise money from investors. Three companies under Muehler’s control, Muehler’s wife, Claudia M. Muehler, and his associate, Koorosh “Danny” Rahimi (“Rahimi”), were also charged. The SEC, since the scheme is ongoing, is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Muehler’s ongoing violations of the securities laws, pending trial of the action.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Muehler’s companies are not registered as broker-dealers. Since at least November 2015, however, Muehler and his companies have agreed to provide broker-dealer services to more than 20 small businesses, including identifying and soliciting investors and utilizing a purportedly proprietary online securities exchange to help raise funds from investors. Muehler and his companies, in return, received fees, the right to a percentage of any funds raised from investors, and the right to an equity stake in each small business customer.
The SEC also alleges that in offering broker-dealer services, Muehler and his companies made numerous fraudulent claims to potential customers, including that Muehler and his companies had $50 million on-hand to invest in their customers’ securities, that they had previously helped customers raise millions of dollars, and that their proprietary online exchange was registered with the SEC. They also concealed that Muehler is subject to an SEC cease-and-desist order and has been sanctioned by California and Minnesota securities regulators.
The SEC’s complaint also charges Muehler with violating a cease-and-desist order issued by the SEC in 2016 barring Muehler from associating with any broker-dealer, and the SEC has filed a parallel action in the same court to enforce that SEC order.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Claudia Muehler and Danny Rahimi helped Muehler carry out this scheme.
The SEC’s complaint, which seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus interest, and penalties, charges Muehler and the three companies he controls (AltaVista Capital Markets, LLC, AltaVista Private Client, LLC, and AltaVista Securities, LLC) with violating Section 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(a), Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and also charges Muehler with violating Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It charges Claudia Muehler with aiding and abetting Muehler’s and the AltaVista Companies’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and charges Rahimi with violating Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Source: SEC.gov
Mar 1, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
Georgetown University Voluntary Contribution Retirement Plan & Georgetown University Voluntary Contribution Retirement Plan Subject of ERISA Class Action
On February 23, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Georgetown University on behalf of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Georgetown University Voluntary Contribution Retirement Plan and the Georgetown University Voluntary Contribution Retirement Plan (“Georgetown University Retirement Plan(s)” or “Retirement Plans”).
According to the class action complaint:
Eligible faculty and staff members of Georgetown University are able to participate in the [Georgetown University Retirement Plans]. The [Retirement] Plans provide a primary source of retirement income for many employees of Georgetown University. Contributions to the [Retirement] Plans are based upon deferrals of employee compensation and employer matching contributions. The ultimate retirement benefit provided to investors in the [Retirement] Plans – who in retirement plan-speak also are known as “plan participants” or just “participants” . . . depends on the performance of investment options chosen for the [Retirement] Plans by the Defendants net of fees and expenses. Participants . . . have a right to direct the investment of their accounts among the available investment choices.
The class action complaint also alleges that
. . . instead of leveraging the [Retirement] Plans’ substantial bargaining power to benefit participants and beneficiaries, Defendants failed adequately to evaluate and monitor the [Retirement] Plans’ expenses and caused the [Retirement] Plans to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for investment and administrative services.
Defendants’ first breach of duty [in this regard] was to fail to select a suitable, single service provider to provide administrative and recordkeeping services to the [Retirement] Plans in exchange for a reasonable amount of compensation.
Rather than negotiating a separate, reasonable and fixed fee for recordkeeping with a single administrative provider to the [Retirement] Plans, Defendants continuously retained three different service providers – the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America and College Retirement Equities Fund (“TIAA-CREF” or “TIAA”), The Vanguard Group and/or Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company (“Vanguard”) and Fidelity Investments (“Fidelity”). Each of these recordkeepers supplied the [Retirement] Plans with a separate menu of investment choices including mutual fund share classes that charged higher fees than (i) other less expensive investment alternatives that offered the same investment strategies or (ii) less expensive share classes of the exact same investment fund, or (iii) both.
The class action complaint against the Retirement Plans alleges that TIAA-CREF, Vanguard, and Fidelity were the “three platform providers” which created “three investing segments” for the Retirement Plans, and plan participants could only choose from, and invest in, the investment choices of one of the three investing segments. Retirement plan participants, according to the complaint, “. . . paid asset-based fees for administrative services, which continued to increase as the value of their accounts increased through additional contributions and investment returns[,] even though no additional services were being provided to Plaintiffs as their fees went up.”
The significant volume of investment choice selections from the three investing segments (hundreds of mutual fund and annuity investment choices) “. . . indicates that Defendants failed properly to monitor and evaluate the historical performance and expense of the[] funds,” and “. . . the inclusion of many investment alternatives . . . unreasonably burdens plan participants who do not have the resources to pre-screen investment alternatives in the way Defendants do.” According to the complaint, “. . . Defendants selected and maintained investment options for the Plans that historically and consistently underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive fees.”
The complaint provides additional evidence of the Retirement Plans’ “flawed fiduciary process,” as evidenced by “. . . approval of a TIAA loan program for [Georgetown] University employees who elected to borrow against their retirement plan savings. This program (i) required excessive collateral as security for repayment of these loans, (ii) required an illegal transfer of plan assets to TIAA as collateral for the loan repayment when no such transfer is necessary or permitted, and (iii) violated DOL rules for retirement plan participant loan programs.” (Emphasis added.)
401(k), 403(b), Employee Stock Ownership & Other Retirement Plan Participants
If you believe your retirement plan investments have suffered losses due to imprudent investments, breaches of fiduciary duty, misrepresentations, excessive, unreasonable or undisclosed retirement plan fees or other corporate wrongdoing by retirement plan administrators and managers, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. by completing the form above on the right or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Feb 28, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
Ameriprise Financial Settles Charges That It Overcharged Retirement Account Customers for Mutual Fund Shares
On February 28, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that Minnesota-based Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a broker-dealer and investment adviser, has agreed to settle charges for recommending and selling higher-fee mutual fund shares to retail retirement account customers and for failing to provide sales charge waivers.
According to the SEC’s Ameriprise Financial Services Order, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. disadvantaged certain retirement account customers by failing to ascertain their eligibility for less expensive mutual fund share classes. Ameriprise Financial recommended and sold these customers more expensive mutual fund share classes when less expensive share classes were available. Ameriprise Financial also failed to disclose that it would receive greater compensation from the purchases and that the purchases would negatively impact the overall return on the customers’ investments.
According to the SEC, approximately 1,791 customer accounts paid a total of $1,778,592.31 in unnecessary up-front sales charges, contingent deferred sales charges, and higher ongoing fees and expenses as a result of the practices of Ameriprise Financial. Further, Ameriprise Financial cooperated with the SEC and voluntarily identified the affected accounts, issued payments including interest to the affected customers, and converted eligible customers to the mutual fund share class with the lowest expenses for which they are eligible, at no cost.
According to the SEC’s Order:
From at least January 2010 through June 2015 . . ., Ameriprise disadvantaged certain retirement plan customers (“Eligible Customers”)[] by failing to ascertain that they were eligible for a less expensive share class, and recommending and selling them more expensive share classes in certain open-end registered investment companies (“mutual funds”) when less expensive share classes were offered to these Eligible Customers by Ameriprise on its platform. Ameriprise did so without disclosing that it would receive greater compensation from the Eligible Customers’ purchases of the more expensive share classes. Eligible Customers did not have sufficient information to understand that Ameriprise had a conflict of interest resulting from compensation it received for selling the more expensive share classes. Specifically, Ameriprise recommended and sold these Eligible Customers Class A shares with an up-front sales charge or Class B or Class C shares with a back-end contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”) (a deferred sales charge the purchaser pays if the purchaser sells the shares during a specified time period following the purchase) and higher ongoing fees and expenses, when these Eligible Customers were eligible to purchase load-waived Class A shares. Ameriprise omitted material information concerning its compensation when it recommended the more expensive share classes to these Eligible Customers. Because Ameriprise did not ascertain these customers’ eligibility for load-waived A shares, it did not disclose to Eligible Customers that the purchase of the more expensive share classes would negatively impact their overall return, in light of the different fee structures for the different fund share classes. (Emphasis added)
The SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative and cease-and-desist proceeding finds that Ameriprise violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, and without admitting or denying the findings, Ameriprise Financial consented to a cease-and-desist order, a censure, and a penalty of $230,000.
Source: SEC.gov
