Dec 17, 2017 | Securities Class Action Archive
Endo International Class Action Lawsuit
On November 14, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against Endo International and certain of its officers on behalf of a class of Endo International investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Endo International securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Endo International Class Action Lawsuit – The Investor Class
The Endo International class action lawsuit concerns shareholders who purchased Endo International’s securities between September 28, 2015, and February 28, 2017, both dates inclusive.
Endo International – Background & Par Pharmaceutical Holdings Acquisition
“Endo International plc is a highly focused generics and specialty branded pharmaceutical company delivering quality medicines through excellence in development, manufacturing and commercialization.”
Endo International, “[t]rough [its] operating companies – Endo Pharmaceuticals, Par Pharmaceuticals and Paladin Labs – Endo is dedicated to serving patients in need.”
Endo claims to have “a long-standing history of success in developing and delivering quality products to [its] customers,” along with a “broad set of therapeutic areas,” which include, for example, allergy immunotherapy, dermatology, infectious disease, pain, and urology.
In the beginning of the securities law suit class period on September 28, 2015, Endo announced that it had completed its $8.05 billion acquisition of Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. TPG, a global private investment firm.
Endo International’s September 28, 2015 press release stated that as a result of the acquisition,
Endo has further established its position as a leading global specialty pharmaceutical company with a fast growing generics business that is among the top five as measured by U.S. sales according to IMS. The acquisition also helps position Endo for long-term double-digit organic growth, enhanced cash flow generation and increased financial flexibility. Endo’s generics portfolio now includes an extensive range of in market and R&D stage complex and competitively differentiated dosage forms and delivery systems, with a focus on higher barrier-to-entry and first-to-market products. Endo’s combined U.S. Generics segment, which includes Par Pharmaceutical and Qualitest, will be named Par Pharmaceutical, an Endo International Company and will be led by Paul Campanelli, former Chief Executive Officer of Par Pharmaceutical, who will also join Endo’s Executive Leadership Team.
Endo International Class Action Lawsuit Allegations
The class action complaint alleges that throughout the September 28, 2015 to February 28, 2017 class period, the named Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Endo International’s business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants, according to the class action complaint, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the class period that
(i) Par Pharmaceutical had colluded with several of its industry peers to fix generic drug prices; (ii) the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii) the competitive advantages of the Par Pharmaceutical Acquisition, which Endo touted to its shareholders as, inter alia, “a compelling opportunity to drive future double-digit growth, serve our customers and build shareholder value,” were in fact derived in part from Par Pharmaceutical’s illegal conduct and thus unsustainable; (iv) for the same reasons, the “impressive track record of delivering strong operating results” that Endo attributed to former Par Pharmaceutical executive Paul Campanelli in announcing his promotion to Endo’s CEO consisted in part of illegal conduct; (v) for the foregoing reasons, Endo’s revenues during the Class Period were in part the result of illegal conduct and likewise unsustainable; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Endo’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Media Reports: U.S. Prosecutors Consider Criminal Charges Against Par Pharmaceuticals and Others
According to the Endo International class action lawsuit filing, on November 3, 2016, there were media reports that U.S. prosecutors were considering filing criminal charges by the end of 2016 against Par Pharmaceutical and several other pharmaceutical companies for unlawfully colluding to fix generic drug prices. Bloomberg, according to the complaint, reported in an article, “U.S. Charges in Generic-Drug Probe to Be Filed by Year-End,” that
U.S. prosecutors are bearing down on generic pharmaceutical companies in a sweeping criminal investigation into suspected price collusion, a fresh challenge for an industry that’s already reeling from public outrage over the spiraling costs of some medicines .
The antitrust investigation by the Justice Department, begun about two years ago, now spans more than a dozen companies and about two dozen drugs, according to people familiar with the matter. The grand jury probe is examining whether some executives agreed with one another to raise prices, and the first charges could emerge by the end of the year, they said.
Though individual companies have made various disclosures about the inquiry, they have identified only a handful of drugs under scrutiny, including a heart treatment and an antibiotic. Among the drugmakers to have received subpoenas are industry giants Mylan NV and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Other companies include Actavis, which Teva bought from Allergan Plc in August, Lannett Co., Impax Laboratories Inc., Covis Pharma Holdings Sarl, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Mayne Pharma Group Ltd., Endo International Plc’s subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical Holdings and Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
All of the companies have said they are cooperating except Covis, which said last year it was unable to assess the outcome of the investigation.
. . .
Allergan, Impax and Sun declined to comment beyond their filings. Representatives of Endo, Covis, Taro and Lannett didn’t respond to requests for comment. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. [Emphasis added in class action complaint]
The Endo International class action lawsuit complaint stated that on November 3, 2016, as a result of this news, Endo’s share price fell $3.54, or 19.48%, to close at $14.63.
Endo International Files Form 10-K & Another Stock Drop
On March 1, 2017, Endo International filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC, reporting Endo International’s financial and operating results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2016. According to the class action complaint,
[r]eflecting the extent to which Par Pharmaceutical’s unlawful conduct had previously inflated Endo’s revenues, [Endo International] reported a net loss of $3.35 billion, or $15.03 per diluted share, on revenue of $4.01 billion, citing, in part, a 27% increase in cost of revenues and a decrease in gross margins from 36% in 2015 to 34% in 2016.
The Endo International class action lawsuit complaint stated that on March 1, 2017, as a result of this news, Endo’s share price fell $0.83, or 6.08%, to close at $12.82.
Attorneys General From 46 States and D.C. Amend Generic Drug Price-Fixing Antitrust Case
According to the Endo International class action lawsuit complaint:
On October 31, 2017, attorneys general from 46 states and the District of Columbia amended their antitrust case on generic drug price-fixing conspiracy against the $75 billion generic drug industry to add 18 new companies, including Endo’s wholly-owned subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. The states allege these companies violated antitrust laws to artificially inflate the prices of the drugs by agreeing to “collectively raise and/or maintain prices for a particular generic drug,” and agreeing to divvy up the market for the drugs to reduce competition by “refusing to bid for particular customers or by providing a cover bid that they knew would not be successful.” This in effect “avoided price erosion” and “increased pricing for targeted products without triggering a ‘fight to the bottom’ among existing competitors.”
According to the amended complaint, these companies conspired to unreasonably restrain trade, artificially inflate and reduce competition in the generic pharmaceutical industry for the markets of fifteen generic drugs: Acetazolamide, Doxycycline Hyclate Delayed Release, Doxycycline Monohydrate, FosinoprilHydrochlorothiazide, Glipizide-Metformin, Glyburide, Glyburide-Metformin, Leflunomide, Meprobamate, Nimodipine, Nystatin, Paromomycin, Theophylline, Verapamil and Zoledronic Acid. As a result of the conspiracy, “[p]rices for dozens of generic drugs have risen – while some have skyrocketed, without explanation, sparking outrage from politicians, payers, and consumers across the country whose costs have doubled, tripled, or even increased 1,000% or more.”
Endo International Shareholders
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Endo International shares and wish to speak privately with a securities attorney about the Endo International class action lawsuit, please complete the form to the right or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected] or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
Dec 15, 2017 | Securities Class Action Archive
Qudian’s IPO & American Depositary Shares – Class Action Lawsuit Filed
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against Qudian and certain Qudian officers, directors, and underwriters, alleging that Qudian and Qudian-related Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The class action against Qudian was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Qudian American Depositary Shares (“ADS”) in Qudian’s October 2017 Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) traceable to an Amended Registration Statement filed with the SEC on Form F-1/A on October 13, 2017 and a Prospectus, dated October 17, 2017, filed with the SEC.
The class action lawsuit against Qudian concerns whether the named Defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements in the Registration Statement connected to the IPO by failing to disclose that Qudian’s loan collection practices were materially deficient and/or nonexistent, since Qudian treated bad loans as welfare; as well as whether Qudian’s data systems and procedures were inadequate to properly safeguard sensitive borrower data against breach, as well as that breaches had occurred.
Qudian’s IPO – $900 Million Gross Proceeds & Qudian American Depositary Shares Price Fall
In Qudian’s IPO, 37.5 million Qudian American Depositary Shares were sold at $24.00 per share for gross proceeds of $900 million, which, according to a Reuters article, “represents the biggest-ever U.S. listing by a Chinese financial technology firm.”
On December 13, 2017, Qudian American Depositary Shares closed at $13.98 per share, or more than 41% below the IPO price of $24 per share.
Bloomberg Reports: “China Regulators, Police Probe Qudian Client Data Leak”
On November 23, 2017, Bloomberg reported:
Chinese regulators and police are investigating a potential leak of data from online lender Qudian Inc., according to people with knowledge of the matter.
Officials are probing allegations that data from more than a million students who are clients of Beijing-based Qudian was leaked and possibly sold online, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing private information. The investigation is ongoing and may not lead to any action against Qudian, the people said.
The probe’s initial findings show that at least part of the leaked data match information clients had provided to Qudian, the people said. Investigators are checking whether the data came from Qudian, if the company was aware of the breach, and whether it took necessary measures to ensure the safety of personal information it collects.
Bloomberg also reported that “Qudian’s shares have slumped 33 percent since its initial public offering in New York in October, as China’s government moved to crack down on the mushrooming industry of online cash microlending” and that Qudian’s “. . . IPO prospectus didn’t mention any leaks of data containing customer information. Violations of protecting personal information carries possible penalties including shutdown of websites or cancellation of business licenses under China’s Cybersecurity Law.” [Emphasis added]
The Qudian Investor Class
The federal securities class action complaint was, subject to certain exclusions, filed on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased Qudian’s American Depositary Shares each representing one “Class A” ordinary share pursuant and/or traceable to Qudian’s allegedly false and misleading Registration Statement, issued in connection with Qudian’s IPO on or about October 18, 2017, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
Qudian Underwriter Defendants, Due Diligence & The Registration Statement
In addition to Qudian and certain Qudian officer and director defendants, the class action complaint named the following IPO-related underwriter defendants:
Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited; UBS Securities LLC; Stifel, Nicolaus and Company, Incorporated; Needham & Company, LLC; and Nomura Securities International, Inc.
According to the class action complaint:
Pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act, the Underwriter Defendants are liable for the false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement. The Underwriter Defendants assisted Qudian and the Individual Defendants in planning the IPO and purportedly conducted an adequate and reasonable due diligence investigation into the business and operations of Qudian. As part of their due diligence investigation, the Underwriter Defendants had continuous access to confidential corporate information concerning Qudian’s business and financing practices, and met with Qudian’s lawyers, management, and top executives. As a result, a reasonable due diligence investigation would have revealed the misleading statements and omissions contained in the Registration Statement . . ..
Qudian’s Registration Statement – Alleged Negligent Preparation & Security of Borrower Data
According to the class action complaint, [t]he Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Further, the complaint alleges that the following statements concerning the security of borrower data “. . . were false and/or misleading when made because they failed to disclose the fact that Qudian’s data systems and procedures were materially inadequate to safeguard sensitive borrower data against breach, and breaches had occurred[]”:
Our business and internal systems rely on software that is highly technical and complex. In addition, our business and internal systems depend on the ability of such software to store, retrieve, process and manage large amounts of data. The software on which we rely has contained, and may now or in the future contain, undetected errors or bugs. Some errors may only be discovered after the code has been released for external or internal use. Errors or other design defects within the software on which we rely may result in a negative experience for users, delay introductions of new features or enhancements, result in errors or compromise our ability to protect user data or our intellectual property, or affect the accuracy of our operating data. Any errors, bugs or defects discovered in the software on which we rely could result in harm to our reputation, loss of users, liability for damages, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
* * *
Misconduct and errors by our employees and parties we collaborate with could harm our business and reputation. We are exposed to many types of operational risks, including the risk of misconduct and errors by our employees and parties that we collaborate with. Our business depends on our employees and/or business partners to interact with users, process large numbers of transactions, deliver merchandise purchased by borrowers, providing user and after-sale product services and support the collection process, all of which involve the use and disclosure of personal information. We could be materially and adversely affected if transactions were redirected, misappropriated or otherwise improperly executed, if personal information was disclosed to unintended recipients or if an operational breakdown or failure in the processing of transactions occurred, whether as a result of human error, purposeful sabotage or fraudulent manipulation of our operations or systems.
* * *
If any of our employees or business partners take, convert or misuse funds, documents or data or fail to follow our rules and procedures when interacting with users, we could be liable for damages and subject to regulatory actions and penalties. We could also be perceived to have facilitated or participated in the illegal misappropriation of funds, documents or data, or the failure to follow our rules and procedures, and therefore be subject to civil or criminal liability. Any of these occurrences could result in our diminished ability to operate our business, potential liability to users, inability to attract users, reputational damage, regulatory intervention and financial harm, which could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Investors of Qudian American Depositary Shares
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Qudian American Depositary Shares (NYSE:QD) pursuant to Qudian’s IPO and would like to speak privately with a securities attorney, please complete the form to the right or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected] or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dec 14, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
FTC Consumer Information to Help Individuals After the Equifax Data Breach Decide Whether to Place a Fraud Alert, Credit Freeze or Credit Lock
In light of the Equifax data breach, the FTC provided FAQ guidance to help individuals decide whether to place a fraud alert, credit freeze or credit lock on their credit files to help stop or prevent identity theft.
Fraud Alerts
What is a fraud alert?
A fraud alert requires companies to verify your identity before extending new credit, which usually means calling you to determine if you are really trying to open a new account.
The three national credit reporting companies (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion) keep records of one’s credit history. If someone has misused your personal or financial information, call one of the credit reporting companies (TransUnion 1-800-680-7289; Experian 1-888-397-3742; Equifax 1-800-525-6285) to request an initial fraud alert on your credit report.
If you are concerned about identity theft, but have not yet become a victim, you can also place an initial fraud alert. For example, according to the FTC, you may want to place a fraud alert if your wallet, Social Security card, or other personal, financial or account information are lost or stolen. Additionally, you also may want to place a fraud alert if your personal information was exposed in a data breach.
A fraud alert is free, and the company you call must tell the other companies about your alert.
An initial fraud alert can make it harder for an identity thief to open more accounts in your name. When you have an alert on your report, a business must verify your identity before it issues credit, so it may try to contact you.
How long does a fraud alert last?
An initial fraud alert stays on your report for at least 90 days; allows you to order one free copy of your credit report from each of the three credit reporting companies; and after 90 days, you can renew your alert for additional 90-day periods.
Military service members who deploy can place an active duty alert on their credit reports to help minimize the risk of identity theft. An active duty alert on a credit report means businesses have to take extra steps before granting credit in your name. Active duty alerts last for one year and can be renewed to match the period of deployment. Military service members who deploy can get an active duty alert that lasts one year, renewable for the period of deployment. Identity theft victims (whose information has been misused, not just exposed in a breach) are entitled to an extended fraud alert, which lasts seven years.
If you have created an Identity Theft Report, you can get an extended fraud alert on your credit file. When you place an extended alert, you can get two free credit reports within 12 months from each of the three nationwide credit reporting companies, and the credit reporting companies must take your name off marketing lists for prescreened credit offers for 5 years, unless you ask them to put your name back on the list. The extended alert lasts 7 years.
How much does a fraud alert cost?
Again, fraud alerts are free, and with a fraud alert, you keep access to your credit and federal law protects you. Further, initial fraud alert lasts only 90 days, unless renewed.
Credit Freezes
What is a credit freeze?
A credit freeze limits access to your credit file so no one, not even you, can open new accounts until the credit freeze is lifted.
How does a credit freeze work?
To be fully protected, you must place a credit freeze with each of the three credit reporting agencies. Credit freezes can be placed by telephone or online. You will get a PIN to use each time you freeze or unfreeze, which may take one to three business days.
How long does a credit freeze last?
A credit freeze lasts until you temporarily lift or permanently remove it (except in a few states where credit freezes expire after seven years).
How much does a credit freeze cost?
Fees are set by state law, but, generally, cost $5 to $10 each time you freeze or unfreeze your account with each credit reporting agency. You can get a free credit freeze, if you are an identity theft victim, or, in some states, if you are over age 62.
While Equifax will let you place or lift a credit freeze for free until January 31, 2018, TransUnion and Experian are not offering free credit freezes. And, as of now, Equifax’s offer will end on January 31, 2018. This means that any time you need to get new credit, you will need to remove the credit freeze, then place it again, with each of the three agencies — at a cost of $5 to $10 per agency each time, depending on your state’s law.
Are credit freezes free for identity theft victims, and will I also get free credit freezes from the other two credit reporting agencies? The answer is: No. An identity theft victim is someone whose information has been exposed AND misused. If you are a data breach victim, your information is at greater risk of misuse; unless that happens, you are not an identity theft victim entitled to free credit freezes on that basis.
Many people have had very sensitive personal information exposed in the Equifax data breach, such as Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers. Equifax is offering free credit freezes until January 31, 2018, and Equifax also will refund fees to anyone who already has paid for credit freezes since the breach was announced on September 7, 2017. If you want a free credit freeze from Equifax, the company can be reached via 1- 800-349-9960 or by visiting freeze.equifax.com.
Should I place a credit freeze?
A credit freeze means that no one (not even you) can access your credit file until you unfreeze it, using a PIN or passphrase, which makes it harder for identity thieves to open new accounts in your name.
To be effective, you must place a credit freeze with all three credit reporting agencies (Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian), because when a criminal attempts to take out new credit, a business can pull your credit report from any of the three agencies. If you have only frozen your Equifax file and the business checks with Experian or TransUnion, your Equifax freeze does not help you.
Credit freezes are generally best for people who do not plan to take out new credit. This, often, includes older adults, people under guardianship, and children. Individuals who want to avoid monthly fees also may prefer credit freezes over credit locks.
Credit Locks
What is a credit lock?
Like a credit freeze, a credit lock limits access to your credit file so no one, not even you, can open new accounts until you unlock your credit file.
How does a credit lock work?
Like a credit freeze, to be fully protected, you must place credit locks with all three credit reporting agencies. With credit locks, however, there is no PIN and, usually, no wait to lock or unlock your credit file (although the current Equifax credit lock can take 24 to 48 hours). You can lock and unlock on a computer or mobile device through an “app” – but not with a telephone call.
How long does a credit lock last?
Credit locks last only as long as you have an ongoing credit lock agreement with each of the credit reporting agencies. In some cases, that means paying monthly fees to maintain your credit lock service.
How much does a credit lock cost?
Credit reporting agencies can set and change credit lock fees at any time. As of today, Equifax offers free credit locks as part of its free post-breach credit monitoring. Experian and TransUnion may charge monthly fees (often about $20).
Do I need a credit lock?
Depending on your particular credit lock agreement, your fees and protections may change over time. So, if you sign up for a credit lock, it is difficult to be sure what your legal protections will be if something later goes wrong. Also, monthly credit lock fees can quickly exceed the cost of credit freezes, especially if the credit lock fees increase over time.
Differences Between Fraud Alerts, Credit Freezes & Credit Locks
Additional FTC Information & Resources
Credit Freeze FAQs
Extended Fraud Alerts and Credit Freezes
Fraud Alert or Credit Freeze – Which is Right for You
Free Freezes from Equifax
FTC’s Resource Page about the Equifax Data Breach
IdentityTheft.gov
FTC’s Equifax Data Breach Resource Page
Source: FTC.gov and related websites.
Dec 13, 2017 | Blog
Overdraft Programs & Overdraft Fees – CFPB’s Overdraft Program Study
“Consumer Voices on Overdraft Programs” – CFPB Overdraft Study – Key Findings
The CFPB reported that it launched a qualitative study to explore consumers’ thoughts, intentions, and expectations about overdraft programs to supplement its quantitative analyses of overdraft programs and their impacts on consumers. This qualitative study consisted of in-depth interviews with consumers who had experience with overdraft programs.
The CFPB’s report detailed the findings from consumer interviews, including how interviewed consumers understood overdraft programs, consumer perceptions of experiences with overdraft, and consumer beliefs about the advantages and drawbacks to alternatives to overdraft.
The CFPB reported the following key findings from consumer interviews:
Consumers in the study noted several benefits to the availability of overdraft as well as drawbacks. Despite recognizing some benefits, however, all participants were concerned about the high cost of overdraft fees.
Participants commonly reported surprise at the overdraft fees they were charged. At the same time, some participants expressed awareness that they risked overdraft fees when transacting.
Participants expressed uncertainty about how their financial institutions make decisions about what to pay into overdraft or how they charge overdraft fees; participants were particularly uncertain about how their financial institution’s overdraft policies differed across types of transactions.
Many participants’ overdraft experiences reflected uncertainty about transaction processing, such as the timing of deposits being credited to their accounts. Participants also commonly forgot about scheduled payments that resulted in overdrawn accounts.
Participants frequently cited friends and family members as resources that could provide an alternative for them to overdraft. Their views on other financial products as alternatives to overdraft such as credit cards or savings diverged widely, with some participants viewing these alternatives as beneficial and others viewing alternatives as risky.
CFPB’s Overdraft Study Highlights Importance of Providing Suggestions & Strategies To Support Consumers
The CFPB report stated that
. . . the range of experiences with overdraft described by consumers participating in the CFPB’s study highlights the importance of providing resources that reflect the diversity in how consumers use and understand overdraft programs. The wide range of preferences and experiences that consumers relayed through the interviews indicates that financial educators may best achieve their goals by designing flexible resources that adapt to individual consumers’ experiences and preferences. Below are some suggestions of strategies . . . to support consumers:
**Remind consumers to consider a bank or credit union’s overdraft practices when selecting a checking account.
**Encourage consumers to investigate all overdraft options offered for their current checking account, including linking an account, in order to select the plan that best fits their needs.
**Help clients develop a system for staying aware of the timing of their scheduled payments. The CFPB’s Your Money Your Goals toolkit includes a spending tracker and a bill calendar that consumers can use to keep track of their cash flow. Those who are interested in the tools can order them for free at consumerfinance.gov/your-money-your-goals/.
**Encourage consumers to check account balances periodically by doing things such as calling their bank, visiting an ATM, signing up for text alerts, viewing accounts online, or using mobile applications before making discretionary purchases.
**Suggest that consumers sign up for low balance alerts to help them avoid unintentional overdraft.
CFPB Educational Resources and Tips for Consumers on Managing Checking Accounts, Including Information on Overdraft-Related Issues
Guides to selecting and managing checking accounts, available at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/guides-to-help-you-open-and-manage-your-checking-account/.
A worksheet to support consumers in managing spending to achieve their financial goals at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/managing-your-spending-achieve-your-goals/.
Explanation of how overdraft programs differ for everyday debit card purchases and ATM withdrawals at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/understanding-overdraft-opt-choice/.
Answers to consumer questions about overdraft and other issues relating to bank accounts and services as part of the Ask CFPB website at consumerfinance.gov/askcfpb.
The CFPB’s report, which shares findings from qualitative interviews the CFPB conducted with consumers about their experiences with overdraft programs, can be viewed by clicking CFPB’s Consumer Voices Report.
Dec 12, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Urban Outfitters Department Managers Misclassified as Exempt – Alleged Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) Violations
Federal lawsuits have been filed against Urban Outfitters, Inc. alleging Urban Outfitters misclassified Urban Outfitters Department Managers as exempt under state and federal overtime laws and failed to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked, as well as overtime pay for all hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek.
In one federal lawsuit, filed in United States District Court, District of Colorado, the Plaintiff alleged that she, pursuant to the FLSA, is entitled to unpaid wages from Urban Outfitters for all hours worked, in addition to overtime for work for which she did not receive overtime premium pay, as well as, pursuant to the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above 12 per day and/or 40 in a workweek.
In the Colorado lawsuit, the Plaintiff was employed as an Urban Outfitters Department Manager from approximately November 2012 until September 2013 at an Urban Outfitters store in Lone Tree, Colorado. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 12 hours per day and/or 40 hours per workweek without receiving wages from Urban Outfitters for all hours worked, as well as overtime compensation, as required by federal and Colorado laws.
According to the complaint filed in Colorado federal court:
-Urban Outfitters employed the Plaintiff as a Department Manager
-The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 12 hours per day and/or 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and Colorado law
-Urban Outfitters scheduled the Plaintiff to work 40 hours per week, when, in fact, Plaintiff worked an average of approximately 45-50 hours per week during each week in which the Plaintiff worked five or more shifts.
-Plaintiff performed work which required minimal skill; was primarily manual in nature (e.g., cleaning the store, folding clothes, building displays, unloading freight); and did not involve managerial responsibilities (e.g., hiring, firing, disciplining or supervising).
-Urban Outfitters misclassified the Plaintiff and all Department Managers as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and Colorado law.
-Urban Outfitters, as part of its regular business practice, intentionally and repeatedly engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the FLSA and Colorado law, including, but not limited to, willfully misclassifying the Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and Colorado law, as well as willfully failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages for hours worked beyond 40 hours per workweek.
Urban Outfitters Department Managers
If you served as an Urban Outfitters Department Manager and wish to discuss whether you may have legal claims with an attorney, 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].
