Feb 18, 2021 | Securities Class Action Archive
Investigation of Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Officers And Directors For Potential Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims – Zoom Investors Who Have Held Their Stock Continuously Since 2019 Are Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating whether certain officers and/or directors of Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (“Zoom” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: ZM) breached their fiduciary duties to Zoom and the Company’s shareholders.
The breach of fiduciary duties investigation concerns, among other things, whether certain officers and/or directors of Zoom made false and/or misleading statements about the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies regarding, for example, the level of security protecting Zoom’s video conferencing services.
If you have held Zoom stock continuously since 2019 and wish to discuss Kehoe Law Firm’s investigation or have questions about your potential legal rights, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], to learn more about the investigation or potential legal claims.
Feb 17, 2021 | Securities Class Action Archive
Jianpu Technology Inc. Investors With Losses Greater Than $50,000 Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Jianpu Technology Inc. (“Jianpu” or the “Company”) (NYSE: JT) to determine whether Jianpu may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public, thereby harming investors.
On February 16, 2021, Jianpu announced the results of the Company’s “review of certain matters relating to transactions carried out by [its] Credit Card Recommendation Business Unit . . . with third-party business entities.”
The findings of the review, according to Jianpu, “generally cover the fiscal years 2017-2019.” The Company stated that “[t]he [r]eview found that certain transactions involved third-party agents (including both upstream agents and downstream suppliers) with undisclosed relationships, and some transactions lacked business substance (‘questionable transactions’).”
Jianpu announced that “[a]s a result, certain revenue and associated expenses were inflated or inaccurately recorded in the financial statements. Evidence suggested that certain employees from the Credit Card [Business Unit] may have known about or been involved in certain of the questionable transactions that resulted in inflated sales commissions to such employees. In relation to the questionable transactions, the [r]eview found that certain employees improperly altered supporting documents that were provided to the Company’s external auditor.”
Further, regarding the “overall financial impact of the questionable transactions on its financial statements,” Jianpu stated that it “. . . anticipates the total amount of overstated revenue for the fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to be approximately, RMB 90 million and RMB 164 million, respectively, representing approximately 4.5% and 10.1% of the total revenue previously reported by the Company for such years, and the adjustment to overstated cost and expenses together with the reserve for potential credit loss to be approximately RMB 90 million and RMB 130 million for the fiscal years of 2018 and 2019, respectively, resulting in a minimal net profit impact for the fiscal year 2018 and RMB 34 million of net loss impact for the fiscal year 2019.” [Emphasis added.]
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.60, or 13%, closing at $3.94 per share on February 16, 2021.
Jianpu investors who have suffered losses greater than $50,000 are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss potential legal claims by completing Kehoe Law Firm’s Securities Class Action Questionnaire or by sending an e-mail to [email protected] or [email protected].
Feb 17, 2021 | Car Problems Car Complaints, Consumer Protection
NHTSA Active Vehicle Defect Investigations
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that monthly reports of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) recalls and active vehicle defect investigations can be viewed by clicking “NHTSA Monthly Reports: Recalls and Investigations.”
Investigations are grouped according to type of investigation (i.e., Preliminary Evaluation, Engineering Analysis, Recall Query, and Defect/Recall Petition) and identify the products under investigation, the alleged problem, and the investigation status.
For details on specific investigations, consumers can enter the investigation’s “Action#” in the NHTSA SAFETY ISSUE ID box, after selecting the “search by NHTSA ID” link on the NHTSA “Safety Issues & Recalls” page (click here.)
Types of NHTSA Defect Investigations
The types of defect investigations are defined by the NHTSA as follows:
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (“PE”)
Initial phase of a NHTSA investigation, a PE is prompted after a review of consumer complaints and/or manufacturer service bulletins suggest a safety defect may exist. The results of a PE determine whether the investigation will be upgraded to an Engineering Analysis or closed. Most PEs are resolved within four months.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (“EA”)
Second and final phase of a NHTSA investigation, an EA is undertaken if data from a PE indicate further examination of a potential safety defect is warranted. The results of an EA determine whether a safety recall should be initiated or the investigation should be closed. Most EAs are resolved within one year.
RECALL QUERY (“RQ”)
NHTSA monitors recalls to ensure that the scope, completion rate, and remedy are adequate. If recall adequacy comes into question, an RQ is opened to determine if the scope of the recall should be expanded or an adjustment in existing remedies is required.
DEFECT OR RECALL PETITION (“DP” OR “RP”)
NHTSA may be petitioned to investigate an alleged safety defect or whether a manufacturer has successfully carried out the requirements of a recall. If the petition is granted, NHTSA opens an appropriate investigation. If the petition is denied, the reasons for denial are published in the Federal Register.
VEHICLE OWNERS AND LESSEES AFFECTED BY AUTOMOTIVE DEFECTS OR SAFETY RECALLS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C., [email protected], FOR A FREE, NO-OBLIGATION EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
Source: NHTSA.gov
Feb 16, 2021 | Securities Class Action Archive
Securities Class Action Investigations On Behalf Of Investors Of Healthcare Services Group, Inc. & Range Resources Corporation – RRC & HCSG Investors Who Have Suffered Losses Greater Than $250,000 Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities class action claims on behalf of investors of Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (“Healthcare Services”) (NASDAQ: HCSG) and Range Resources Corporation (“Range Resources”) (NYSE: RRC) to determine whether the companies engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
Healthcare Services
On February 10, 2021, Healthcare Services issued a press release announcing their financial and operating results for Q4 2020. The press release also provided an update on a previously disclosed SEC investigation into Healthcare Services’ earnings-per-share (“EPS”) calculation practices, announcing, among other things, that “[t]he Company and the SEC have recently commenced discussions regarding a potential resolution of the investigation, which focuses on periods prior to 2018. As discussions regarding a potential resolution are ongoing, Mr. John C. Shea, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, has notified the Company that he is taking a temporary leave of absence from his duties.”
On this news, HCSG’s stock price fell $3.01 per share, or 8.88%, closing at $30.90 per share on February 10, 2021.
Range Resources
Media outlets recently reported that Range Resources paid a $294,000 civil penalty to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. According to Gant News, Range Resources paid the civil penalty “ . . . for violations of the 2012 Oil and Gas Act . . . regarding wells ineligible for inactive status listed on its inactive status request to DEP.”
On this news, the stock price of Range Resources fell $0.62 per share, or 6.08%, to close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2021.
INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, RRC OR HCSG SECURITIES AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $250,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM’S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, (215) 792-6676, EXT. 802, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
Feb 15, 2021 | Securities Class Action Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed On Behalf Of bluebird bio Investors – BLUE Investors With Losses Greater Than $100,000 Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of investors of bluebird bio, Inc. (“bluebird” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: BLUE) to determine whether the Company engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, BLUEBIRD SECURITIES BETWEEN MAY 11, 2020 AND NOVEMBER 4, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE “CLASS PERIOD”), AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $100,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM’S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215) 792-6676, EXT. 804, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
On February 12, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed against bluebird in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.
Throughout the Class Period, according to the class action complaint, the bluebird Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies.
The bluebird Defendants, allegedly, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) data supporting bluebird’s U.S. Biologics Licensing Application (“BLA”) submission for LentiGlobin for sickle cell disease (“SCD”) was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (ii) Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company’s BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to manufacturing; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a result, bluebird’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
