Jan 20, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Vodafone ADR Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Vodafone Group plc (NASDAQ:VOD)
Vodafone’s website states that “Vodafone Group Plc is one of the world’s leading telecommunications groups, with a significant presence in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific through the company’s subsidiary undertakings, joint ventures, associated undertakings and investments.”
On January 18, 2018, a federal securities class action (Ferrare v. Vodafone Group Public Limited Company, et al, No. 18-00466) was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than the Vodafone Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Vodafone American Depositary Receipts from February 11, 2015 through January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Vodafone Defendants’ violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Vodafone ADR class action complaint alleges that the Vodafone Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Vodafone had contravened Australian law by permitting customers to purchase pre-paid mobile phones without first verifying their identities, and, as a result, Vodafone’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Australian Communications and Media Authority Announcement & Vodafone ADR Price Drop
As previously posted (“Vodafone Breaches Prepaid Mobile Service Verification Rules”), on January 10, 2018, post-market, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (“ACMA)” announced that “Vodafone Network Pty Limited will significantly improve its processes for verifying the identity of prepaid mobile customers under an enforceable undertaking accepted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority,” subsequent to an investigation by the ACMA which disclosed that Vodafone “failed to verify the identity of at least 1,028 customers before activating their prepaid mobile services.” According to the ACMA media release, “[t]he breaches occurred between 6 January 2015 and 6 January 2016. They resulted from changes to Vodafone’s IT systems that allowed customers to self-select online that their identity had been verified in store, without any further check that this had actually occurred.”
The ACMA’s Final Investigation Report stated:
After completing its investigation, the ACMA finds that Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Limited [VHA] . . . has contravened section 2.3 of the Telecommunications (Service Provider – Identity Checks for Prepaid Mobile Carriage Services) Determination 2013 (the Prepaid Determination) on at least 1,028 occasions. As a consequence of these contraventions, the ACMA also finds that VHA contravened subsection 101(1) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (the Act) on at least 1,028 occasions as it did not comply with the service provider rules that apply to it, namely the rules set out in the Prepaid Determination in force under section 99 of the Act. [Emphasis added]
Further, the ACMA report stated that “[i]n February 2016 the ACMA became aware of an option on VHA’s website which allowed customers of its prepaid mobile carriage services to select that their identity had been verified in a store and then proceed to activate their service through use of the website,” and “[t]he ACMA was concerned that the ID-checked in store option appeared to allow customers to activate their prepaid mobile carriage service using the website without VHA necessarily having checked the customer’s identity at the time of sale . . . of the service or at the time of activation as required by the Prepaid Determination.” [Emphasis added]
The ACMA’s Final Investigation Report referred to “ID-checked in store option” as the option which allowed VHA customers to self-select on VHA’s website that their identity had been verified in store followed by activation of their prepaid mobile carriage service.
ACMA News & Vodafone ADR Price Decline
On this news, Vodafone’s American Depositary Receipts declined from a closing price of $32.60 on January 9, 2018 to a closing price of $31.44 on January 11, 2018, an ADR decrease of approximately 3.55%.
Vodafone ADR Purchasers or Acquirers
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Vodafone Group plc American Depositary Receipts from February 11, 2015 through January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive, 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 19, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
CFTC Charges Patrick K. McDonnell & CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets, With Engaging in Fraudulent Virtual Currency Scheme
On January 19, 2018, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) issued a press release stating that the CFTC filed a federal civil enforcement action in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, against Defendants Patrick K. McDonnell, of Staten Island, New York, and CabbageTech, Corp., d/b/a Coin Drop Markets, a New York corporation (“Defendants”), charging the Defendants with fraud and misappropriation in connection with purchases and trading of Bitcoin and Litecoin.
Fraudulent Virtual Currency Scheme Enforcement Action: Virtual Currency Customers Fraudulently Induced to Send Money & Virtual Currencies
The CFTC complaint alleges that from approximately January 2017 to the present, the Defendants engaged in a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme to induce customers to send money and virtual currencies to Coin Drop Markets, purportedly in exchange for real-time virtual currency trading advice and for virtual currency purchasing and trading on behalf of the customers under McDonnell’s direction.
According to the CFTC complaint, the supposedly expert, real-time virtual currency advice was never provided, and customers who provided funds to the Defendants to purchase or trade on their behalf never saw those funds again. In short, the Defendants used their fraudulent solicitations to obtain and misappropriate customer funds.
Fraudulent Virtual Currency Scheme Enforcement Action: Defendants Concealed Scheme
The CFTC complaint alleges that Defendants concealed their virtual currency scheme soon after obtaining customer funds by removing the website and social media materials from the Internet, in addition to stopping communication with Coin Drop Market Customers who lost most, if not all, of their invested funds due to Defendants’ fraud and misappropriation.
The CFTC complaint (CFTC v. McDonnell, et al, No. 18-0361) also alleges that the Defendants have never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity, and the CFTC action seeks injunctive and other equitable relief for civil monetary penalties under the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulations.
Fraudulent Virtual Currency Scheme Enforcement Action: CFTC’s Director of Enforcement Comments
The CFTC’s Direcotr of Enforcement, James McDonald, stated that, “[a]s alleged, the Defendants here preyed on customers interested in Bitcoin and Litecoin, promising them the opportunity to get the inside scoop on the next new thing and to benefit from the trading acumen of a supposed expert. In reality, as alleged, customers only bought into the Defendants’ fraudulent scheme.”
Image: Bitcoin, Tumisu, CC0 1.0 Universal
Cryptocurrency & Initial Coin Offering Investor Information
Please click Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. for more information about cryptocurrencies, Initial Coin Offerings, and other class action investigations. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency Investors are also encouraged to review the following SEC and CFTC cryptocurrency- and Initial Coin Offering-related information:
SEC Chairman Jay Clayton Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings (Dec. 11, 2017)
SEC Division of Enforcement and SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations Statement on Potentially Unlawful Promotion of Initial Coin Offerings and Other Investments by Celebrities and Others (Nov. 1, 2017)
Investor Alert: Public Companies Making ICO-Related Claims (Aug. 28, 2017)
Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO (July 25, 2017)
Investor Bulletin: Initial Coin Offerings (July 25, 2017)
Investor Alert: Bitcoin and Other Virtual Currency-Related Investments (May 7, 2014)
Investor Alert: Ponzi Schemes Using Virtual Currencies (July 23, 2013)
CFTC Customer Advisory: Understand the Risks of Virtual Currency Trading (December 15, 2017)
A CFTC Primer on Virtual Currencies (October 17, 2017)
Source: CFTC.gov and SEC.gov
Jan 19, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
Bitcoin Fraud Enforcement Action: Bitcoin & Binary Options Fraud Scheme: CFTC Charges Colorado Resident Dillon Michael Dean & The Entrepreneurs Headquarters Limited
On January 19, 2018, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a press release stating that on January 18, 2018, the CFTC filed a civil enforcement action in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, against Defendants Dillon Michael Dean of Longmont, Colorado, and his company, The Entrepreneurs Headquarters Limited, a UK-registered company (“Bitcoin Defendants”).
Bitcoin Fraud Enforcement Action: Bitcoin Defendants Engaged in Scheme to Solicit Bitcoin
The CFTC complaint charges the Bitcoin Defendants with engaging in a fraudulent scheme to solicit Bitcoin from members of the public, misrepresenting that customers’ funds would be pooled and invested in products including binary options, making Ponzi-style payments to commodity pool participants from other participants’ funds, misappropriating pool participants’ funds, and failing to register with the CFTC as a Commodity Pool Operator and Associated Person of a Commodity Pool Operator.
Bitcoin Fraud Enforcment Action: CFTC’s Director of Enforcement Comments
The CFTC’s Director of Enforcement, James McDonald, stated that the Bitcoin Defendants, “[a]s alleged in the [c]omplaint, . . . sought to take advantage of that public interest, offering retail customers the chance to use Bitcoin to invest in binary options, when in reality they were only buying into a Ponzi scheme.” The CFTC’s Director of Enforcement emphasized that “. . . the CFTC will continue to take swift action to stop such fraudulent schemes and to hold fraudsters accountable for their misconduct.”
Bitcoin Fraud Enforcement Action: CFTC’s Complaint Allegations Against Bitcoin Defendants
The CFTC’s complaint against the Bitcoin Defendants alleges the following:
From approximately April 2017 through the present, the Bitcoin Defendants, who have never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity, engaged in a fraudulent scheme, through which they solicited at least $1.1 million worth of Bitcoin from more than 600 members of the public.
The Bitcoin Defendants allegedly promised to convert this Bitcoin into fiat currency to invest on the customers’ behalf in a pooled investment vehicle for trading commodity interests, including trading binary options on an online exchange designated as a contract market by the CFTC.
Potential pool participants were solicited to invest with the Bitcoin Defendants by false claims of trading expertise and promises of high rates of return.
Rather than convert customers’ Bitcoin to fiat currency to invest in binary options contracts, as promised, the Bitcoin Defendants misappropriated their customers’ funds, including, like a Ponzi scheme, use of the funds to pay other customers.
The Bitcoin Defendants solicited customer deposits using company websites, YouTube videos, and Facebook posts, where the Bitcoin Defendants claimed that customers’ funds would be pooled and invested in commodity options on behalf of customers, that Bitcoin Defendant Dillon Michael Dean had “strong skills” in options trading, and that the Bitcoin Defendants were generating high rates of return through trading commodity options, among other false claims.
The Bitcoin Defendants, however, were not actually engaged in trading on behalf of their customers, and the Bitcoin Defendants’ purported trading profits were fictitious. As alleged in the CFTC’s complaint, the Bitcoin Defendants stopped making payments to their customers, having misappropriated over $1 million in customers’ funds, while Bitcoin Defendant Dean has launched another similar purported trading venture under the name Real Trade Profits, using a website to solicit customers to deposit Bitcoin for a pooled investment in binary options trading and promising high rates of return.
The CFTC’s complaint (CFTC v. Dean, et al, No. 18-00345) seeks injunctive and other relief, restitution, and civil monetary penalties under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Image: “New bitcoin logo,” Bitboy (Derived from Bitcoin logo.svg), CC0 1.0 Universal
Bitcoin Cryptocurrency & Initial Coin Offering Investor Information
Please click Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. for more information about cryptocurrencies, Initial Coin Offerings, and other class action investigations.
Kehoe Law Firm also encourages investors to review the following SEC and CFTC cryptocurrency- and Initial Coin Offering-related information:
SEC Chairman Jay Clayton Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings (Dec. 11, 2017)
SEC Division of Enforcement and SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations Statement on Potentially Unlawful Promotion of Initial Coin Offerings and Other Investments by Celebrities and Others (Nov. 1, 2017)
Investor Alert: Public Companies Making ICO-Related Claims(Aug. 28, 2017)
Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO (July 25, 2017)
Investor Bulletin: Initial Coin Offerings (July 25, 2017)
Investor Alert: Bitcoin and Other Virtual Currency-Related Investments (May 7, 2014)
Investor Alert: Ponzi Schemes Using Virtual Currencies (July 23, 2013)
CFTC Customer Advisory: Understand the Risks of Virtual Currency Trading (December 15, 2017)
A CFTC Primer on Virtual Currencies (October 17, 2017)
Source: CFTC.gov and SEC.gov
Jan 18, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
According to Halozyme:
Halozyme is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing and commercializing novel cancer therapies that target the tumor microenvironment. Our lead proprietary program, investigational drug PEGPH20 (pegvorhyaluronidase alfa), applies a unique approach to targeting solid tumors, potentially providing increased immune response and tumor access for co-administered anti-cancer therapies.
Abstract Published Regarding Phase IB/II Randomized Study of HALO’s PEGPH20 as Pancreatic Cancer Treatment
An abstract detailing a Phase IB/II randomized study of Halozyme’s drug PEGPH20 as a treatment for pancreatic cancer in combination with the cancer drug mFFOX was published at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (“ASCO”) in connection with a scheduled presentation at the “2018 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.”
According to the abstract, “addition of PEGPH20 to mFFOX is not recommended for further study and appears to be detrimental” after noting that patients who used the mFFOX+PEGPH20 combination experienced higher percentage levels of “Selected GR 3-4 Toxicity,” such as diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting, more than those who used mFFOX as a monotherapy.
The abstract, “A phase IB/II randomized study of mFOLFIRINOX (mFFOX) + pegylated recombinant human hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) versus mFFOX alone in patients with good performance status metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC): SWOG S1313 (NCT #01959139),” stated that “PEGPH20 with mFFOX caused increased toxicity (mostly GI and TE events) and decreased treatment duration compared to mFFOX alone” and contained the following table reflecting “Selected GR 3-4 Toxicity” and percentage comparisons between mFFOX and mFFOX+PEGPH20:
Halozyme Stock Drop During Intraday Trading & Halozyme Stock Price Target Lowered
Following this news, Halozyme’s share price fell sharply during intraday trading on January 17, 2018.
According to The Motley Fool (“This News Explains Halozyme Therapeutics’ Double-Digit Drop Today”), Halozyme stock shares fell after a Deutsche Bank analyst lowered his price target to $19 from $21 on HALO’s stock. According to The Motley Fool, HALO stock shares fell 10% as of 11.25 a.m. EST on January 17, 2018.
The Motley Fool reported that although the analyst made the decision to keep his HALO stock buy rating, the analyst “noted that the data from the . . . abstract adds ‘incrementally higher-risk to the PEGPH20 program'” and, according to The Motley Fool, “[g]iven the data, it’s hard to disagree with [the analyst’s] assessment.”
Halozyme Stock (NASDAQ:HALO) Shareholders
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating claims on behalf of Halozyme stock investors to determine whether Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. If you purchased Halozyme 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 18, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Federal Securities Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against TESARO on Behalf of a Class of Purchasers or Acquirers of TSRO Securities Between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. previously reported about its investigation of TESARO, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSRO) on behalf of TESARO shareholders.
On January 17, 2018, a federal securities class action (Bowers v. Tesaro Incorporated, et al, No. 18-10086) was filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons, other than the TESARO Defendants, who purchased, or otherwise acquired, TESARO securities between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover damages caused by the TESARO Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against TESARO and certain of TESARO’s executives.
TESARO Class Action Complaint & TESARO Defendant’s Alleged False and Misleading Statements
According to the TESARO class action complaint:
[TESARO] is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company that identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer therapeutics and oncology supportive care products in the United States.
. . .
At all relevant times, [TESARO’s] product portfolio has included [VARUBI® (rolapitant)], a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. In 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved an oral version of Varubi. On March 14, 2016, [TESARO] announced the submission of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for an intravenous formulation of Varubi to the FDA. 25, On October 25, 2017, Tesaro announced the FDA’s approval of its intravenous version of Varubi.
Throughout the Class Period, [TESARO] Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding [TESARO’s] business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) substantial undisclosed health risks, including anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock, were associated with [TESARO’s] intravenous formulation of Varubi; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, [TESARO’s] shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and damages. [Emphasis added]
TESARO Updates U.S. VARUBI® (rolapitant) Labeling & TSRO Stock Drop
According to the TESARO class action complaint:
On January 12, 2018, post-market, [TESARO] announced that it had updated the U.S. labeling for the intravenous formulation of Varubi after receiving reports of “[a]naphylaxis, anaphylactic shock and other serious hypersensitivity reactions . . . in the post-marketing setting, some requiring hospitalization.” [TESARO] further stated that it “has issued a Dear Healthcare Professional (DHCP) letter.”
On this news, [TESARO’s] share price fell $4.07 or 5.85%, to close at $65.52 on January 16, 2018. [Emphasis added]
Further, according to the TESARO class action complaint, [a]s a result of [TESARO’s] wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of [TESARO’s] securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. [Emphasis added]
TESARO Investors & Shareholders
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired TSRO securities between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, 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].
