Feb 6, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Overtime Wages Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Mortgage Lenders of America Team Leads, Team Leaders, Loan Officers, Mortgage Loan Officers, and Entry Level Loan Officers
A Fair Labor Standards Act collective and Rule 23 class action lawsuit was filed on February 5, 2018 in United States District Court, District of Kansas, Kansas City Division, against Kansas-based Mortgage Lenders of America, L.L.C. for allegedly misclassifying workers, failing to pay minimum wage for hours worked, and failing to pay overtime for all hours worked over 40 per week.
The lawsuit’s Team Lead collective class consists of Mortgage Lenders of America Team Leads, Team Leaders, and others with similar job titles, in the United States within the past three years who were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime compensation for hours worked beyond 40 per work week.
The lawsuit’s Loan Officer collective class consists of Mortgage Lenders of America Loan Officers, Mortgage Loan Officers, Entry Level Loan Officers, and others with similar job titles who originated loan products, in the United States at any time during the last three years who were classified as non-exempt, hourly employees who worked more than 40 hours per week without payment for all minimum wage and/or overtime compensation.
The members of the lawsuit’s Loan Officer Rule 23 class consists of individuals employed by Mortgage Lenders of America as Loan Officers, Mortgage Loan Officers, Entry Level Loan Officers, and other mortgage origination employees with similar job titles within the past three years in the State of Kansas who were denied minimum wage and/or overtime compensation.
According to the complaint:
[Mortgage Lenders of America’s] policy and practice is to deny earned wages including minimum wage and/or overtime pay to its Loan Officers. In particular, [Mortgage Lenders of America] requires these employees to perform work in excess of forty (40) hours per week but fails to pay them minimum wages and/or overtime for all hours worked.
[Mortgage Lenders of America’s] deliberate illegal treatment of its Team Leads and Loan Officers, which denies them minimum wage and/or overtime compensation results in MLOA willfully violating the [Fair Labor Standards Act].
Mortgage Lenders of America Loan Officers and Team Leaders
If you served as a Team Lead, Team Leader, Loan Officer, Mortgage Loan Officer, Entry Level Loan Officer, or held a similar position, and feel you were improperly denied overtime as required by federal and state wage laws, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected], to discuss your potential legal rights or claims.
Feb 6, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
lululemon athletica inc. Announces Resignation of CEO Laurent Potdevin
LULU Stock Price Drops 3.11% in After-Market Trading on February 5, 2018
On February 5, 2018, lululemon athletica issued a press release (“lululemon athletica inc. CEO Laurent Potdevin Resigns – Three senior leaders to assume expanded roles reporting to Executive Chairman Glenn Murphy”) which stated, in pertinent part, that lululemon (NASDAQ:LULU)
. . . the healthy lifestyle inspired athletic apparel company, today announced that Laurent Potdevin has resigned as CEO and as a member of the [lululemon] Board of Directors, effective immediately. lululemon expects all employees to exemplify the highest levels of integrity and respect for one another, and Mr. Potdevin fell short of these standards of conduct. The Board of Directors has immediately begun a search process for a proven and highly-experienced global Chief Executive Officer.
“While this was a difficult and considered decision, the Board thanks Laurent for his work in strengthening the company and positioning it for the future,” said Glenn Murphy, Executive Chairman of the Board. “Culture is at the core of lululemon, and it is the responsibility of leaders to set the right tone in our organization. Protecting the organization’s culture is one of the Board’s most important duties.”
[Emphasis added]
lululemon’s Form 8-K issued in this regard stated that on February 2, 2018, Laurent Potdevin resigned as CEO and as a member of lululemon’s board of directors; the board of directors appointed Glenn Murphy to serve as lululemon’s Executive Chairman; and lululemon’s senior leaders will report to Murphy during the search for a replacement CEO. The Form 8-K also stated that
[i]n connection with Mr. Potdevin’s resignation, lululemon entered into a separation agreement and release under which Mr. Potdevin agreed to a general release of claims in favor of lululemon, an extension of his non-solicitation period to a period of 24 months, a covenant not to sue and a covenant of future cooperation. In exchange for these releases and covenants, lululemon agreed to pay Mr. Potdevin a lump sum cash payment of $3,350,000 as soon as practicable after the effective date of the separation, and a cash payment of $1,650,000 to be paid over a period of 18 months in equal monthly installments beginning 60 days after the separation date. Mr. Potdevin will not receive any continued or accelerated vesting of any outstanding equity awards. Mr. Potdevin’s entitlement to this consideration is subject to his continuing compliance with the terms of the separation agreement and release, as well as various other restrictive covenants, including covenants relating to non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disparagement and confidentiality.
See also Yahoo! Finance’s “Lululemon’s CEO resigns over issue of conduct.”
lululemon Stock Price Drops 3.11% in After-Market Trading on News of CEO’s Resignation
On the news of the CEO’s resignation, LULU’s stock price dropped 3.11% in after-market trading from a February 5, 2018 close of $77.41.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
lululemon Investors and Shareholders
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating whether lululemon and certain of the company’s officers or directors violated securities laws, breached their fiduciary duties or engaged in other unlawful business practices. For more information, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Feb 6, 2018 | Blog, Consumer Protection
The Telemarketing Sales Rule: For-Profit Telemarketers Must Be Truthful
According to a recent Federal Trade Commission blog posting (“Telemarketing Sales Rule requires clarity on charity”):
To make sure that telemarketers are truthful about why they are calling, so consumers can make an informed decision about whether to engage with a telemarketer and contribute to a charity, the 2001USA Patriot Act expanded the Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule to cover calls made to solicit charitable contributions.
At the direction of Congress, the FTC modified the Telemarketing Sales Rule to:
1) Apply to interstate calls made by for-profit telemarketers to solicit charitable contributions;
2) Require for-profit telemarketers to promptly disclose the name of the group making the request and that the purpose of the call is to ask for a donation; and
3) Prohibit for-profit telemarketers from making false or misleading statements to induce a person to contribute.
For-Profit Charitable Callers Must Follow the Telemarketing Sales Rule
Another FTC blog posting (“For-profit charitable callers must follow the rules”) advised that “The Do Not Call Registry” is designed to stop unwanted sales calls; however, one exception to the Do Not Call Registry allows for-profit fundraisers to call individuals on behalf of charities even if one’s telephone number is listed on the Do Not Call Registry. When these charitable fundraisers call someone, however, they must still follow the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
Notable provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule Which For-Profit Fundraisers Must Follow:
Telemarketers must promptly tell consumers the charity on whose behalf they’re calling and truthfully disclose if the purpose of the call is to ask for a donation.
Telemarketers cannot make misleading statements to persuade people to donate, including misrepresentations about the charitable purpose, how much money goes to the charity, whether donations are tax deductible, how the money will be used, or the telemarketer’s connection to the charity.
Telemarketers cannot use robocalls or prerecorded messages to reach consumers unless the person is a current member of the charity or has donated to the charity in the past. And even if the consumer has donated to that charity before, robocalls from a telemarketer must promptly offer a way to opt out of future calls.
If the consumer tells the telemarketer they don’t want to be called by that charity again, the telemarketer must maintain a Do Not Call list for that charity and stop calling that person on behalf of that charity.
Telemarketers cannot call before 8 A.M. or after 9 P.M.
Telemarketers must keep certain records, like scripts and promotional materials, for two years.
Have You Received Unsolicited or Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Autodial Calls, Robocalls or Text Messages?
If you have received unwanted, unsolicited or harassing telemarketing calls, autodial calls, robocalls or text messages and would like to speak privately with an attorney to learn more about your potential legal rights, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Feb 5, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Class Action Follows MetLife’s Delayed Earnings Announcement
As previously reported, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. commenced an investigation on behalf of MetLife, Inc. (NYSE:MET) investors to determine whether MetLife, Inc. and certain of its officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices, as a result of MetLife’s announcement that it would postpone the earnings report and conference call related to MetLife’s results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2017.
On the news of MetLife’s delayed earnings report, MetLife’s stock price fell significantly in after-hours trading on January 29, 2018.
MetLife Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Purchasers of MET Securities Between February 27, 2013 and January 29, 2018, Both Dates Inclusive
A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of MetLife, Inc. between February 27, 2013 and January 29, 2018, both dates inclusive (“Class Period”). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MetLife investors under the federal securities laws.
According to the securities lawsuit, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) MetLife’s practices and procedures used to estimate its reserves set aside for annuity and pension payments were inadequate; (2) MetLife had inadequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about MetLife’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the truth emerged and entered the market, the class action lawsuit alleges that MetLife investors suffered damages.
MetLife’s aforementioned announcement regarding its delayed earnings release was contained in a press release which stated, in pertinent part, that
[o]n its Dec. 15, 2017, Investor Outlook Call, MetLife announced that it was undertaking a review of practices and procedures used to estimate its reserves related to certain Retirement and Income Solutions group annuitants who have been unresponsive or missing over time.
Management of the company has determined the prior release of group annuity reserves resulted from a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting. MetLife expects to increase reserves in total between $525 million and $575 million pre-tax, to adjust for reserves previously released, as well as accrued interest and other related liabilities. The amount of the reserve increase is based in substantial part on actuarial, legal, statistical, and other assumptions. If actual facts and factors differ from those the company has assumed, the reserve the company has established could be adversely or positively affected.
The total amount expected to impact fourth quarter 2017 net income is between $135 million and $165 million pre-tax, the majority of which represents a current period strengthening of reserves and will be reflected in Adjusted Earnings (formerly known as Operating Earnings)[]. [MetLife] expect[s] the full year 2017 net income impact to be between $165 million and $195 million pre-tax. In addition, the company intends to make prior period revisions to reflect the balance of these adjustments in the appropriate historical periods. The company also expects to correct historical periods for unrelated errors in those periods, as required by accounting standards. Those errors were previously recorded in the periods in which the company identified them.
. . .
In connection with MetLife’s review and enhancement of the processes and procedures relating to its Retirement and Income Solutions business in the United States, MetLife is currently reviewing its processes and procedures for identifying unresponsive and missing international group annuity annuitants and pension beneficiaries. In addition, MetLife recently initiated an ongoing global review of its processes and procedures for identifying unresponsive and missing policyholders and beneficiaries for the other insurance and annuity products it offers. MetLife is not currently aware of any material deficiencies in its identification of unresponsive or missing annuitants, policyholders or beneficiaries with respect to such products under review.
MetLife had previously informed its primary state regulator, the New York Department of Financial Services, about this matter and is responding to questions from them and other state regulators. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement staff has also made an inquiry regarding this matter and MetLife is responding to its questions. To date, MetLife is not aware of any intentional wrongdoing in connection with this matter.
[Emphasis added]
MetLife Investors Who Purchased, or Otherwise Acquired, MetLife Securities
MetLife investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, publicly-traded MetLife securities between February 27, 2013 and January 29, 2018, both dates inclusive, who have questions or concerns about Kehoe Law Firm’s investigation or their potential legal rights are encouraged to contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected] for additional information.
Feb 4, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Guess?, Inc. Stock Price Takes a Big Hit on News Accusing Guess Co-Founder of Inappropriate Conduct
Stock shares of Guess?, Inc. (“Guess”), the company which “design[s], market[s], distribute[s] and license[s] one of the world’s leading lifestyle collections of contemporary apparel and accessories for men, women and children that reflect the American lifestyle and European fashion sensibilities,” plummeted 17.8% on February 1, 2018, according to The Motley Fool (“Why Guess?, Inc. Stock Plummeted Today”)
. . . after the clothing retailer’s co-founder was accused of sexual misconduct. Late Wednesday, supermodel Kate Upton took to social media to express her disappointment that Guess is “empowering” company co-founder Paul Marciano as its chief creative director.
‘He shouldn’t be allowed to use his power in the industry to sexually and emotionally harass women,’ Upton elaborated, using the #MeToo hashtag that has come to signify the recent movement to highlight the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment.
See also CNBC’s article (“Guess shares crater as actress accuses co-founder of sexual harassment”) which, among other things, reported that the shares of Guess “. . . nose-dived Thursday, a day after actress Kate Upton called out co-founder Paul Marciano for allegedly using ‘his power in the industry to sexually and emotionally harass women.’”
On February 1, 2018, Guess?., Inc. (NYSE: GES) filed a Form 8-K which stated:
In early November 2017, an entertainment website notified Guess?, Inc. . . . that it was seeking to post separate allegations that Paul Marciano, [Guess’s] Executive Chairman and Chief Creative Officer, had acted inappropriately toward two women. The website posted the allegations yesterday evening.
Upon being contacted in November 2017, [Guess] immediately investigated the claims with the assistance of outside counsel, and at this time, [Guess] has determined the following: One allegation was taken from a publicly available lawsuit that was filed in 2009. Mr. Marciano denied the allegation at that time, and a contemporaneous investigation conducted in 2009 by [Guess] and outside counsel did not corroborate the plaintiff’s claims. The second allegation concerns an aspiring model who is quoted anonymously in the story claiming inappropriate conduct in March 2016. Mr. Marciano also denies this allegation. To date, the current investigation has not corroborated either allegation, and the Board of Directors has been unable to determine that either accusation has merit.
Through a social media post made yesterday, [Guess] also became aware of concerns expressed by Kate Upton, previously a model for [Guess], regarding prior conduct by Mr. Marciano. Mr. Marciano denies any misconduct toward Ms. Upton. As Ms. Upton’s concerns were just disclosed, they were not part of [Guess’s] current investigation, but [Guess] will fully investigate her claims once they are known to determine if they have any merit. As of today, no specific allegations have been made by Ms. Upton.
Guess Investor and Shareholder Alert – Guess Stock Drops More Than 17%
On the news of Guess and Marciano, the share price of Guess fell $3.26 per share, or more than 17%, from Guess’s previous closing price to close at $15.11 per share on February 1, 2018.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
On February 7, 2018, TIME magazine published an interview with model Kate Upton, in which Upton stated that Marciano “assaulted and began harassing her during her first professional modeling campaign when she was 18.” Upton’s interview provided detailed descriptions of Marciano’s alleged conduct, corroborated by at least one witness.
On February 20, 2018, Guess announced that the Board of Directors and Marciano agreed that Marciano would relinquish his day-to-day responsibilities at Guess, on an unpaid basis, pending the completion of an investigation into the allegations of improper conduct.
On this news, Guess’s share price fell $0.96, or 6.18%, to close at $14.58 on February 20, 2018.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
Guess Shareholders and Investors
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duty by the management of Guess. Guess shareholders and investors with questions or concerns can contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6679, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected] for additional information.
