Feb 23, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
First Amended Class Action Complaint Filed Against Polaris Industries, Inc. For Alleged Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
On February 9, 2018, an amended class action complaint was filed against Polaris Industries in United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). According to the first amended class action complaint, in the morning on or about October 24, 2017, Plaintiff Rob Kline, a Pennsylvania resident, received a call from (570) 221-5039 to his cellular telephone. Upon answering, the Plaintiff detected silence and then an electronic “blip” noise consistent with automatic telephone dialing system-type calls. Allegedly, after the “blip” noise, a voice came on the line, and the caller identified herself as “Brittney” of Polaris.
According to the amended complaint, “Brittney” knew of the Plaintiff’s past purchases made years ago from Polaris, and “Brittney” encouraged the Plaintiff to purchase additional products sold by Polaris. Further, the call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone was placed through an automatic telephone dialing system without the Plaintiff’s prior express written consent. Plaintiff, according to the amended complaint, is not a Polaris Industries customer, and the Plaintiff has not provided Polaris with written consent to be called on his cellular telephone number.
The TCPA class action against Polaris Industries is on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other individuals who received illegal telemarketing calls from, or on behalf, of Polaris, because the automated call to Plaintiff’s cell phone was transmitted using technology capable of generating hundreds of thousands of telemarketing calls per day, and because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls “en masse” to hundreds or thousands of potential customers.
The class of affected individuals is defined as all individuals in the United States to whom Polaris Industries placed a telephone call to a cellular telephone number on or after October 26, 2013 promoting the sale of Polaris products, using a dialing system substantially similar to the dialing system(s) which called Plaintiff Kline, without express consent to initiate automated telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone number. The class action seeks statutory damages of $500 for each TCPA violation and treble, or triple, damages for willful or knowing TCPA violations.
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].
Feb 22, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
SEC Charges Former Bitcoin-Denominated BitFunder Platform and Its Operator with Operating and Defrauding Users of an Unregistered Securities Exchange
On February 21, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it charged a former bitcoin-denominated platform and its operator with operating an unregistered securities exchange and defrauding users of that exchange. The SEC also charged the operator with making false and misleading statements in connection with an unregistered offering of securities.
The SEC alleges that BitFunder and its founder, Jon E. Montroll, operated BitFunder as an unregistered online securities exchange and defrauded exchange users by misappropriating their bitcoins and failing to disclose a cyberattack on BitFunder’s system that resulted in the theft of more than 6,000 bitcoins. The SEC also alleges that Montroll sold unregistered securities that purported to be investments in the exchange and misappropriated funds from that investment as well.
Marc Berger, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office stated, “We allege that BitFunder operated unlawfully as an unregistered securities exchange. Platforms that engage in the activity of a national securities exchange, regardless of whether that activity involves digital assets, tokens, or coins, must register with the SEC or operate pursuant to an exemption. We will continue to focus on these types of platforms to protect investors and ensure compliance with the securities laws.”
The SEC’s complaint, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, charges BitFunder and Jon E. Montroll with violations of the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement plus interest and penalties.
According to the SEC, in a parallel criminal case, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today filed a complaint against Montroll for perjury and obstruction of justice during the SEC’s investigation.
Please click SEC complaint to review the complaint against Jon E. Montroll and BitFunder.
For additional information, see Spotlight on Initial Coin Offerings and Digital Assets.
Source: SEC.gov
Feb 22, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kraton Corporation Announces Q4 and Full Year 2017 Results
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Kraton Corporation (“Kraton”).
The investigation concerns whether Kraton (NYSE: KRA) and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
On February 20, 2018, Kraton Corporation, “a leading global producer of styrenic block copolymers, specialty polymers and high-value performance products derived from pine wood pulping co-products,” announced its financial results for Q4 and the year ended December 31, 2017.
KRA’s President and CEO, Kevin M. Fogarty, stated:
“While our fourth quarter and full-year 2017 results are in line with the updated view for the year we provided in October, reflecting an increase in Adjusted EBITDA of 11% and 6% compared to the fourth quarter and full-year 2016 respectively, our fourth quarter 2017 results include a $7.6 million negative pre-tax impact arising from customer-observed Cariflex processing issues. Specifically, and as previously discussed, in the third quarter of 2017 we initiated the “direct-connect” manufacturing process for our Cariflex products at our manufacturing facility in Paulinia, Brazil. Although material produced from this new process has met technical specifications, during the fourth quarter 2017 certain customers notified us that they were experiencing issues processing the material. We are working with our customers to fully resolve the issue and, to date, we have implemented a number of manufacturing stabilization actions that we believe will address our customers’ processing concerns’ . . .. (Emphasis added)
The slide presentation used in conjunction with KRA’s earnings announcement can be viewed by clicking Kraton Corporation Slied Presentation, February 21, 2018.
On this news, KRA’s stock price fell sharply during intraday trading on February 21, 2018, closing down 15.14% to $43.10 from its previous stock closing price of $50.79.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
Kraton Corporation Investors & Shareholders
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, KRA 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].
Feb 20, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
MDXG Stock Price Drops Significantly on MiMedx’s Announcement of Delayed Financial Results – Internal Investigation Regarding Allegations of Certain Sales and Distribution Practices
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating claims on behalf of investors of MiMedx Group, Inc. (“MiMedx”) (NASDAQ: MDXG) to determine whether MiMedx and certain of its officers and/or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
According to its corporate profile, “MiMedx is an integrated developer, processor and marketer of patent protected and proprietary regenerative biomaterial products and bioimplants processed from human amniotic membrane and other birth tissues and human skin and bone.”
On February 20, 2018, MiMedx announced that MiMedx is postponing the release of its Q4 and FY 2017 financial results. Specifically, MiMedx issued a press release which, in relevant part, stated that the Audit Committee of MiMedx’s Board of Directors ” . . . has engaged independent legal and accounting advisors to conduct an internal investigation into current and prior-period matters relating to allegations regarding certain sales and distribution practices at [MiMedx].” Further, MiMedx advised investors that “[MiMedx] executives are also reviewing, among other items, the accounting treatment of certain distributor contracts.” (Emphasis added)
On this news, MiMedx’s stock price fell sharply during intraday trading on February 20, 2018 to close at $8.75, more than 39% lower than MiMedx’s previous closing price.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
According to foxbusiness.com (“Why MiMedx Group, Inc. Is Crashing Today”):
MiMedx Group is a heavily shorted stock, so it isn’t surprising to see shares falling so hard in response to Tuesday’s news. This update also adds fuel to the long-term bear case against the company, so it is unknown how long it will take for MiMedx to regain Wall Street’s trust.
Given the uncertainty, [MDXG’s] drop does not represent an opportunity to get in. Investors who are looking for bargains in the biotech sector would probably be better served by turning their attention elsewhere. (Emphasis added)
MiMedx Group Investors and Shareholders
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, MDXG 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].
Feb 20, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Complaint Filed Against Allied Interstate – TCPA Violations Alleged**
On February 12, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act was filed against Allied Interstate, Inc. in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida.
Allied Interstate’s website describes the company as “provid[ing] accounts receivable, customer retention and debt collection services to blue-chip companies, from a wide range of industries, who employ [Allied Interstate] to provide these services on their behalf.”
The class action against Allied Interstate seeks statutory damages and other relief, as a result of “the illegal actions of Allied Interstate” for “negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully plac[ing] automated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.” The complaint alleges that Allied Interstate, “[i]n connection with its debt collection efforts . . . operates an aggressive contact schedule which bombards unsuspecting consumers, with whom it has no relationship, with robocalls.”
The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, is a consumer who has, since March 2017, been “bombarded” with multiple, daily autodialed debt collection calls to her cellular telephone from telephone number (866) 464-9481 without Plaintiff’s consent and despite her objection and request to stop the robocalls. Further, the Plaintiff, according to the complaint, does not owe any debts being collected by Allied Interstate and has never had a business relationship with Allied Interstate.
**On February 22, 2018, the Court issued an Order dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. On February 27, 2018, the Plaintiff, by Plaintiff’s attorney, withdrew the complaint and voluntary dismissed the TCPA action without prejudice.
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].
