“Junk Fax” Class Action Filed Against Dry Cast Holdings d/b/a DryCast

Feb 11, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive

Advertisements Sent by Fax in Alleged Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

On January 11, 2018, a “junk fax” class action complaint was filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against Ohio-based Dry Cast Holdings LLC, d/b/a DryCast, on behalf of all persons and entities which, allegedly, received advertisements sent via fax by DryCast in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, who did not have an established business relationship with DryCast, did not expressly consent to receive any advertisement sent by facsimile from the defendant.  DryCast, allegedly, sent a fax advertisement promoting its DryCast Protector.  Among other things, DryCast’s fax advertisement stated that the cast protector is “affordable” and offered a “FREE Sample.” DryCast’s advertisement, which promotes the quality of DryCast’s products (“Trusted for over 25 years!”), also contained DryCast’s contact number (888-379-2278), and website address (drycast.com), but, allegedly, failed to include the required, compliant opt-out notice to prevent future fax transmissions.

DryCast, allegedly, sent fax advertisements to the Plaintiff and more than 39 other individuals in violation of the TCPA. The junk fax action seeks statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA, as well as treble, or triple, damages if it is determined that Dry Cast Holdings willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA’s fax prohibitions.

Have You Received Unsolicited or Unwanted Junk Faxes, Telemarketing Calls, Autodial Calls, Prerecorded Calls, Robocalls or Text Messages?

If you have received unwanted, unsolicited or harassing telemarketing calls, junk faxes, autodial calls, prerecorded calls, robocalls, automated calls or text messages and would like to speak privately with an attorney about your potential legal rights, 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].

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Credit Suisse Securities Financial Advisers Class Action Lawsuit

Feb 11, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive

Class Action Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of All United States-Based Credit Suisse Financial Advisers Who Had Unvested Credit Suisse Deferred Compensation Awards Pursuant to One or More Share Plans and Whose Employment with Credit Suisse Terminated Between October 20, 2015 and March 31, 2016.

On February 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC in United States District Court, Northern District of California, as a result of Credit Suisse’s alleged refusal to pay millions owed in the form of “deferred compensation” to financial advisers who worked in Credit Suisse’s Private Banking Division following Credit Suisse’s decision to “shutter its financial advisory operations in late 2015.” Among other things, the class action lawsuit against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC seeks damages and restitution.

According to the class action complaint:

The compensation that Credit Suisse agreed to pay the [financial] advisers consisted of multiple components. One of the primary components was ‘deferred compensation,’ whereby a significant portion of the [financial] advisers’ compensation for a given year is paid on a deferred basis in subsequent years pursuant to the terms of Credit Suisse’s form contracts. Under the contracts, the deferred compensation vests and is paid under a specified schedule, and is necessarily owed by Credit Suisse to the [financial] adviser except under limited, specified circumstances that are set forth in the contract—specifically, if the adviser voluntarily ‘resigns’ from Credit Suisse or the adviser is terminated by Credit Suisse for cause, neither of which occurred here.

When Credit Suisse, according to the complaint, announced in October 2015 “. . . that it was completely shuttering its financial advisory operations effective within a few months, leaving hundreds of Credit Suisse financial advisors out of a job,” the financial institution

. . . took the erroneous position that the advisors voluntarily ‘resigned’ from Credit Suisse and their remaining deferred compensation was thus forfeited under the contract.  The lone exception that Credit Suisse made to this policy was if an adviser was hired by Wells Fargo, with whom Credit Suisse had entered into a ‘recruiting agreement,’ in which case they were permitted to retain some of their deferred compensation entitlements. Otherwise, all outstanding earned deferred compensation was cancelled and denied entirely by Credit Suisse. Through this ‘resignation’ façade, Credit Suisse is reported to have improperly retained as much as $300 million in deferred compensation owed to the advisers. [Emphasis added]

The class action complaint alleges that Credit Suisse “reaped the benefits of Plaintiff’s and the Class’ work over many years, including through substantial revenues Credit Suisse generated through their work.”  Credit Suisse, allegedly, “should not be able to avoid its obligation to compensate the advisers fully and fairly by claiming they ‘resigned’ when, in fact, Credit Suisse simply ceased operating this business,” and the financial advisers should not “be deprived of their earned deferred compensation because of Credit Suisse’s unilateral business decision to exit the market and eliminate their jobs.”

U.S.-Based Credit Suisse Financial Advisers Whose Employment Terminated Between October 20, 2015 and March 31, 2016

If your employment as a United States-based Credit Suisse Financial Adviser was terminated between October 20, 2015 and March 31, 2016, and at the time your employment ended, you had unvested Credit Suisse deferred compensation awards, pursuant to one or more Share Plans, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected] to discuss your potential legal rights or claims.

NOTE: The Class Excludes Credit Suisse Financial Advisers Who Were Hired by Wells Fargo Between October 20, 2015 and March 31, 2016.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Decatur County General Hospital Hit with Cryptocurrency Malware Attack

Feb 10, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive

Decatur County General Hospital Experiences Electronic Medical Record Security Incident – 24,000 Individuals May Have Been Impacted

Parsons, Tennessee-based Decatur County General Hospital, according to HealthIT Security.com, “experienced an EMR [Electronic Medical Record] security incident when unauthorized software was installed on the server the EMR vendor supports on the organization’s behalf.”  Healthitsecurity.com reported that “the OCR data breach reporting tool states that 24,000 individuals may have been affected.”

The January 26, 2018 statement issued by Decatur County General Hospital reported that on November 27, 2017, the hospital

. . . received a security incident report from [its] EMR system vendor indicating that unauthorized software had been installed on the server the vendor supports on [the hospital’s] behalf. The unauthorized software was installed to generate digital currency, more commonly known as “cryptocurrency.” Following receipt of the incident report, [Decatur County General Hospital] began [its] own investigation into the incident. At this time, [the hospital’s] investigation continues, but [the hospital] believe[s] an unauthorized individual remotely accessed the server where the EMR system stores patient information to install the unauthorized software. The software was installed on the system at least as of September 22, 2017, and the EMR vendor replaced the server and operating about four days later.

Decatur County General Hospital’s statement also disclosed that the hospital does not

. . . have . . . evidence that [patient] information was actually acquired or viewed by an unauthorized individual, and based upon reports of similar incidents, [the hospital] do[es] not believe that [patient] health information was targeted by any unauthorized individual installing the software on the server. [The hospital’s] investigation to date, however, has been unable to reasonably verify that there was not unauthorized access of [patient] information. Information contained on the affected server included demographic information such as patient names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, clinical information such as diagnosis and treatment information, and other information such as insurance billing information. [Emphasis added]

HealthcareInfoSecurity reported that

[t]he hospital’s statement did not offer an explanation about why the EMR vendor apparently took more than two months to notify the hospital about the cryptocurrency mining discovery. And the hospital did not immediately respond to an Information Security Media Group’s request for additional information about the incident. [Emphasis added]

Decatur County General Hospital’s statement about the unauthorized software security incident can be viewed by clicking Decatur County General Hospital EMR Security Incident Announcement.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.