Jan 29, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Robocalls & Prerecorded Messages Allegedly Placed by American Express in Violation of TCPA
On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff Jacob Wilson filed a class action complaint in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the American Express Company (“American Express” or “Amex”) which, allegedly, “as part of its collection operations . . . operates an aggressive contact schedule which bombards unsuspecting consumers, with whom it has no relationship, with robocalls and prerecorded messages.”
The Plaintiff alleges that “[h]e is not an [American Express] customer yet has been bombarded with autodialed and pre-recorded calls made without his consent and over his explicit objection.” Further, “Plaintiff has never had a business relationship with [Amex] and never consented to be contacted by [American Express] on his cellular telephone.”
The actions of American Express, according to the complaint, are violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), and $500 in damages is being sought for each TCPA violation.
Factual Allegations Against Amex Concerning Automated Calls
Plaintiff, allegedly, was “bombarded” with calls to his cell phone throughout January 2018 from telephone numbers (866) 884-0976, (801) 945-9064, and (800) 528-4800. The calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone were part of an “automated calling campaign to further its efforts to contact ‘Jessica,’ a person who Plaintiff does not have any relationship with and does not know.” The calls to Plaintiff continued, despite Plaintiff telling Amex not to call Plaintiff and that he was not “Jessica.”
All the calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone were made by Amex with an “automatic telephone dialing system,” otherwise known as an “autodialer,” and when the Plaintiff answered the telephone calls from Amex, a prerecorded message greeting from American Express was heard prior to the call being routed to a live American Express agent.
The American Express TCPA Class & Monetary Damages Sought
The TCPA class action against American Express is on behalf of a class of all individuals within the United States to whom Amex or its agent(s) and/or employee(s) called one’s cellular telephone through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice within the four years prior to the filing of the class action complaint where such person was not a customer of American Express.
The Plaintiff and other Class members seek an award of $500 in statutory damages for each call placed in violation of the TCPA by American Express for negligently placing multiple automated and prerecorded voice calls to the cellular phones of the Plaintiff and other Class members without their prior express consent.
The Plaintiff and other Class members seek an award of treble damages of up to $1,500 for knowingly and/or willfully placing multiple automated and prerecorded voice calls to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and other Class members without their prior express consent.
Have You Received Autodialed Robocalls from American Express?
If you are not a customer of American Express, reside in the United States, and have received a telephone call to your cell phone from American Express, or one of American Express’ agents or employees, through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice within the past four years, 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, including whether to consider filing a lawsuit to try to recover monetary damages as a result of TCPA violations.
Jan 27, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Grupo Televisa Announces Material Weakness in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
On January 26, 2018, Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. (NYSE:TV) disclosed in a Form 6-K filing that Grupo Televisa’s
. . . management, in consultation with the Audit Committee of [Grupo Televisa’s] board and after discussions with PricewaterhouseCoopers, S.C. (“PwC”), [Grupo Televisa’s] independent registered public accounting firm, has concluded that certain material weaknesses in [Grupo Televisa’s] internal control over financial reporting existed as of December 31, 2016. As a result, the report of management on the effectiveness of [Grupo Televisa’s] internal control over financial reporting, [Grupo Televisa’s] conclusion regarding the effectiveness of disclosure controls or procedures, and PwC’s audit report (each included in [Grupo Televisa’s] Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016) should no longer be relied upon for the reasons described below.
The material weaknesses in [Grupo Televisa’s] internal control over financial reporting related to (i) the design and maintenance of effective controls over certain information technology controls which support systems that are relevant to the provisioning, updating and deleting of users’ access to those systems, the periodic review of users’ access to these systems, developers’ access to certain of these systems and appropriate segregation of duties; (ii) the design and maintenance of effective controls over segregation of duties within the accounting system, including certain individuals with the ability to gain access to prepare and post journal entries across substantially all key accounts of [Grupo Televisa] without an independent review performed by someone other than the preparer; and (iii) ineffective controls with respect to the accounting for certain revenue and related accounts receivable in [Grupo Televisa’s] cable companies and content division.
[Emphasis added]
For additional information, please see the Reuters article, “Mexico’s Grupo Televisa finds weakness in financial controls, shares fall.”
Grupo Televisa’s American Depositary Receipt Price Drop
Grupo Televisa’s ADR price fell on January 26, 2018 on the news of Grupo Televisa’s disclosure concerning its conclusion that certain material weaknesses in Televisa’s internal control over financial reporting existed as of December 31, 2016.
©2017 Google LLC, used with permission. Google and the Google logo are registered trademarks of Google LLC
Kehoe Law Firm Investigating Potential Securities Claims on Behalf of Grupo Televisa Investors
Kehoe Law Firm is investigating potential claims on behalf of Grupo Televisa investors to determine whether Grupo Televisa and certain of its officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. Grupo Televisa investors with questions or concerns should contact John Kehoe, Esq., 9215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Jan 26, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Shares of Ballard Power Systems Dive More Than 15% As of Late Thursday, January 25, 2017 – Kehoe Law Firm Commences Investigation of Securities Claims
Kehoe Law Firm has commenced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Ballard Power Systems Inc. (NASDAQ:BLDP) to determine whether BLDP may have issued materially misleading business information to investors.
On January 25, 2018, The Motley Fool reported (“Why Ballard Power Systems Inc.’s Shares Plunged 16% Today”) that “[s]hares of fuel cell company Ballard Power Systems Inc. . . . plunged as much as 15.8% late Thursday after a short-seller attacked the stock. At 3:15 p.m. EST, [BLDP] shares were still near their daily low, down 15%.” [Emphasis in original]
Spruce Point Capital Management, according to The Motley Fool, “released research via a press release and an article on [Seeking Alpha] laying out its short case for [Ballard Power Systems] stock.” The Motley Fool reported that
Spruce Point [Capital Management] thinks Ballard’s Chinese partnerships won’t live up to expectations. The research report argues, for the most part, that the fuel cell market isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in China, and that as a result there’d be very few long-term wins for joint ventures there. [Emphasis added]
Ballard Has High Percentage Downside Risk – Seeking Alpha Reports About Spruce Point Capital Management’s Review of Ballard Power
On January 25, 2018, a Seeking Alpha article (“China-Based Investigation Into Ballard Power Suggests Earnings Disappointment, 35-70% Downside Risk”) reported the following summary gleaned from Spruce Point Capital Management’s research report on Ballard Power Systems:
[BLDP’s] stock rose +167% in 2017 largely on a capital infusion from China’s Broad Ocean, improved financial performance, and hopes that its Chinese partnerships would expand profit potential.
[Spruce Point Capital’s] China due diligence suggests its partnerships are not likely to succeed given Broad Ocean’s weak financial and market position. Further, [Spruce Point Capital] believe[s] the China market is developing below plan.
Ballard [Power] has prior failures in China (Azure) and a general history of not delivering on its business objections, leading to successive financial losses and share dilution.
Ballard [Power] has only risked $1m of capital into the Synergy JV, and insiders own just 0.5% of the stock. Broad Ocean can sell its 17m shares in July 2018, which [Spruce Point] expect[s] to be a big overhang.
Spruce Point Capital also, as reported by Seeking Alpha, stated that “Ballard [Power] trades at an all-time high valuation on excessive optimism at high risk of disappointing. By normalizing its valuation, [Spruce Point Capital] see[s] 35% to 70% downside risk.”
Spruce Point Capital Management’s review of Ballard Power, as reported by Seeking Alpha, found that “[b]ased on [Spruce Point’s] on-the-ground China research, in [Spruce Point’s] opinion, Ballard is set to disappoint expectations as a result of having selected the wrong Chinese partners, and the market and infrastructure for its products not having developed according to plan.” [Emphasis in original]
Ballard Power Systems Stock Suffers Steep Price Drop
On the news of Spruce Point Capital’s research report, shares of Ballard Power fell $0.52 per share, or more than 13% from its previous stock closing price, to close at $3.27 per share on January 25, 2018.
©2017 Google LLC, used with permission. Google and Google logo are registered trademarks of Google LLC
Have You Purchased, Or Otherwise Acquired, Stock Shares of Ballard Power Systems?
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, shares of Ballard Power stock and have questions or concerns about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Jan 25, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Alleged Failure of Life Time Fitness, Inc. to Pay Federally Mandated Minimum and Overtime Wages to Life Time Fitness Personal Trainers
A collective action complaint for damages (Lenardson, et al v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. (MN), No. 18-00293) was filed on January 19, 2018 in United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, for Life Time Fitness’ failure to pay federally mandated minimum and overtime wages to Life Time Fitness Personal Trainers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the overtime pay collective action complaint, the Plaintiffs served as Life Time Fitness Personal Trainers in Johns Creek, Georgia within the past three years. The Personal Trainers were paid commission based on sales or services furnished to Life Time Fitness members. The complaint against Life Time Fitness also alleges that
Life Time [Fitness] intentionally engaged in a uniform practice of not recording hours worked or notifying Personal Trainers of their regular rate of pay to obscure the payment of minimum and overtime wages. Thus, [Life Time Fitness] Personal Trainers could not and cannot determine whether they are being paid correctly.
Upon information and belief, Life Time [Fitness] held its department heads “personally liable” if Personal Trainers did not make sufficient commissions to meet the draw. Life Time [Fitness] instructed its department heads to have Personal Trainers clocked in only during their assigned shift, regardless of the amount of time actually worked. Managers instructed and threatened [Life Time Fitness] Personal Trainers not to incur draw because the draw would be deducted from the managers’ wages. Thus, even though [Life Time Fitness] Personal Trainers were in the fitness centers under the control of Life Time performing work, they sometimes did not clock in for all hours worked.
[Life Time Fitness] Personal Trainers were required to work more than 40 hours in a workweek performing, among other things, training clients, attending mandatory meetings, completing tutorials, quizzes, videos and certifications, training courses, and cleaning the equipment in the fitness centers. [Life Time Fitness] Personal Trainers, however, were not paid overtime they earned on some occasions. Because Life Time [Fitness] did not want to pay the minimum-wage draw, let alone overtime, [Life Time Fitness] Personal Trainers were forced to perform these duties “off the clock.”
[Life Time Fitness] Personal Trainers were not paid overtime for some work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Have You Served as a Life Time Fitness Personal Trainer?
If you served as a Life Time Fitness Personal Trainer and believe you have claims for unpaid overtime, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Jan 25, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Roomstogo.com, Inc. TCPA Class Action Resolved Via Joint Stipulation of Dismissal
As previously reported, on August 10, 2017 a class action complaint (Wetterer v. Roomstogo.com, No. 17-01900) was filed in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, to stop Roomstogo.com’s alleged “practice of making illegal telemarketing calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by [the] conduct [of Roomstogo.com.]”
According to the complaint, Florida-based Roomstogo.com “placed illegal telemarketing calls to residents of the United States registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry” and that Roomstogo.com “willfully violated the [Telephone Consumer Protection Act] . . . by causing unsolicited calls to be made to Plaintiff’s and other class members’ cellular and residential telephones.”
The complaint further alleged that
[Roomstogo.com] made more than one unauthorized call to Plaintiff’s residential line for the purpose of marketing furniture deals to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not have an existing business relationship with Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not seek information about [Roomstogo.com’s] products, Plaintiff never provided express written consent to be called by [Roomstogo.com], and the calls were an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy. Indeed, Plaintiff has been a member of the National Do-Not-Call Registry, authorized by the TCPA, since March 7, 2009 to prevent persistent and harassing marketing calls to his telephone.
On behalf of the class members, the Plaintiff sought an injunction to require Roomstogo.com to stop all unsolicited telephone calling activities to consumers, $500 per violation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in statutory damages to members of the class action, and treble damages (for knowing and/or willful violations).
Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Between Plaintiff and Roomstogo.com
On January 22, 2018, the Plaintiff and Roomstogo.com filed a joint stipulation dismissing the Plaintiff’s original class action complaint and Plaintiff’s individual claims with prejudice. The claims of the putative class members, pursuant to the joint stipulation were dismissed without prejudice. On January 23, 2018, the presiding federal judge signed an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s individual claims with prejudice and the claims of the putative class members without prejudice.
Have You Received Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Autodialer Calls, Robocalls, Junk Faxes or Text Messages?
If you have received unsolicited telemarketing calls, autodialer calls, robocalls, junk faxes or text messages and have questions about your potential legal rights, including whether to consider filing a lawsuit to try and recover monetary damages as a result of Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. by completing the form above on the right or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
