Aug 6, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Audi, BMW, Daimler/Mercedes-Benz, Porsche & Volkswagen – Class Action Lawsuit Filed
On August 2, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, against leading German automobile manufacturers Audi, BMW, Daimler/Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and Volkswagen for, according to the complaint:
. . . abusing their collective market power to illegally stifle competition, retard innovation and garner profits no matter the adverse impact to consumers or the environment. As far back as the 1990s, Defendants are reported to have regularly met to coordinate on costs, prices, suppliers, technical development and other competitive aspects regarding everything from brake controls and chassis to electronics and car assembly. Specifically, Defendants reportedly coordinated on the cleaning tanks (AdBlue tanks) used in diesel emissions systems – tanks that were known to be too small and are now the cause of illegal pollution in cities throughout the world, including in California and the United States.
The class action complaint further alleges that
The Defendants’ conspiracy, in which they and named and unnamed co-conspirators agreed to share commercially-sensitive information and reached unlawful agreements regarding such competitive aspects of their respective automobile manufacturing businesses, was carried out with the aim of excluding, restraining, and suppressing competition, and has harmed consumers, including Plaintiffs and the Classes, by, inter alia, causing them to pay unlawfully inflated prices and increased maintenance costs for diesel passenger vehicles manufactured and sold by Defendants . . ..
According to the complaint, German diesel passenger vehicles include diesel engine vehicles made by any of the Defendants and not purchased as a commercial vehicle, including, but not limited to, sedans, coupes, hatchbacks, and wagons, in addition to SUVs/crossovers, vans, and trucks.
The complaint further alleges that
[s]ignificantly, the European Commission (“EC”) Competition authorities in Brussels and Germany’s Federal Cartel Office have confirmed that they are investigating Defendants’ participation in anticompetitive activities. In fact, two of the three ultimate parent companies in the conspiracy – Volkswagen AG (which controls Audi AG and Porsche AG) and Daimler AG – have already (i) admitted to the EC Competition authorities and Germany’s Federal Cartel Office that they coordinated with co-defendants and/or other unnamed co-conspirators on competitive aspects of their businesses, and (ii) been cooperating with the EC Competition authorities in the hopes of obtaining amnesty or leniency for their anticompetitive misconduct.
Did You Purchase or Lease A BMW, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche or Mercedes-Benz?
If so, your rights under federal law may have been violated. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney to contribute to or learn more about the investigation, 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].
The 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, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Jul 31, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche & Bentley – Alleged Price-Fixing Among German Automakers
On July 28, 2017, the New Jersey Law Journal reported that “[a] suit filed in federal court in New Jersey accuses German luxury carmakers of colluding to sell their cars at inflated prices in the United States.”
BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche & Bentley Accused of Participating in A 20-Year Conspiracy
The New Jersey Law Journal also reported that
[t]he [class action lawsuit] accuses the makers of Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Porsche and Bentley vehicles of participating in a 20-year conspiracy to unlawfully increase their vehicles’ prices through collaboration on technology, suppliers and emissions controls, according to the suit. Filed . . . on behalf of a nationwide class of car buyers, the [class action lawsuit] comes amid media reports that the companies face price-fixing investigations in the U.S. and Europe. A similar suit was filed on behalf of Canadian car buyers . . . in Montreal.
U.S. Department of Justice Investigating Antitrust Allegations
Further, the New Jersey Law Journal also reported that
[a]ccording to the [class action lawsuit], the Department of Justice announced on Tuesday that it is investigating the antitrust allegations, the plaintiffs said. The European Commission announced on July 22 that it was investigating antitrust allegations against the defendants, and the Bundeskartellamt, Germany’s antitrust regulator, has confirmed that it received information from the defendants that may relate to operation of an antitrust cartel dating to the early 1990s. The statute of limitations was tolled by fraudulent concealment because no information about the alleged antitrust activities were available until July 21, when German news magazine Der Spiegel reported that Volkswagen had disclosed participation in antitrust violations resulting from coordination with other German automakers about development of vehicles, cost suppliers and strategies for controlling emissions in diesel engines from at least the 1990s to the present, the suit said. News about the allegations caused the defendants’ share prices to plummet in German stock markets.
Automaker Collusion Harmed Buyers
According to a July 29, 2017 MirrorBusiness article:
. . . German auto giants Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler were hit with lawsuits this week charging the companies colluded illegally to drive up the prices of their cars.
The suits filed almost simultaneously in US and Canadian courts come as European authorities investigate the German carmakers cartel which allegedly struck unlawful bargains to share technology and strategy. According to one news report, US authorities also are reviewing the allegations.
In a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in New Jersey, three car owners accused the companies of two decades of conspiracy that hurt customers, court papers show. The residents of Florida, New Jersey and the District of Columbia, said the companies illegally shared information on costs, suppliers, markets, emissions equipment and other competitive matters.
That collusion harmed buyers because “they paid more for German luxury vehicles than they otherwise would have,” said the plaintiffs, who claimed to represent an entire class of American buyers.
The US lawsuit seeks “treble damages” at trial, although the amount was not specified. The suit filed in Montreal made similar allegations and seeks US$878 million (CAN US $1.1 billion) in damages.
Did You Purchase or Lease A German Luxury BMW, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Bentley or Mercedes-Benz?
If so, your rights under federal law may have been violated. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney to contribute to or learn more about the investigation, 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].
The 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, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Jul 26, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Mercedes (Daimler), Volkswagen (Audi, Porsche) & BMW
Collusive Emissions-Reducing Practices Since the 1990’s Alleged
On July 24, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that
[t]he latest allegation is that Volkswagen, Porsche and Audi-all owned by the Volkswagen Group-together with Mercedes-maker Daimler and BMW have engaged in collusive practices since the 1990s, including on emissions-reducing technology linked to the VW fraud revealed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2015. The European Union’s top antitrust regulator has confirmed that it is investigating the industry following a tipoff from VW last year. More than (EURO)11 billion ($12.8 billion) has been wiped off the combined market value of the three listed groups since the weekly magazine Der Spiegel published details of what it labeled “the cartel” on Friday.
The Der Spiegel report describes how teams from each of the big five German car makers met to coordinate answers to questions posed by new technology or regulations. Notably, a crucial component for the reduction of noxious nitrogen-oxide emissions from diesel engines was allegedly downscaled for commercial reasons. This eventually led VW and Audi to pass tougher U.S. tests by cheating.
Diesel Emissions – Secret Cartel Allegedly Formed
On July 24, 2017, The Verge reported that
. . . Der Spiegel published an explosive report alleging that the major German automakers formed a secret cartel in the 1990s to collude on diesel emissions. These companies, including Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, Porsche, and Daimler, met in secret working groups to discuss “the technology, costs, suppliers, and even the exhaust gas purification of its diesel vehicles,” the German weekly reported. The meetings were disclosed to German competition officials in letters from VW and Daimler and viewed by Der Spiegel.
The Verge further reported that
[t]he secret meetings “laid the basis” for the 2015 diesel emission cheating scandal, in which VW was caught installing secret software in more than half a million vehicles sold in the US that it used to fool exhaust emissions tests. The admission of cheating ultimately cost the automaker tens of billions of dollars in fines and legal fees, making it one of the most expensive corporate scandals in history.
Years earlier, VW participated in dozens of secret meetings with its competitors, involving over 200 employees in up to 60 working groups, on how to meet increasingly tough emissions criteria in diesel vehicles. The automakers may have colluded to fix prices of a diesel emission treatment called AdBlue through these working groups, Der Spiegel says. Specifically, VW (which owns Porsche and Audi), Daimler (which owns Mercedes-Benz and Smart), and BMW allegedly agreed to use AdBlue tanks that were too small. AdBlue is a liquid solution used to counteract a vehicle’s emissions.
. . .
More recently, Mercedes Benz-parent company Daimler has recalled some 3 million cars for a software update designed to reduce diesel emissions. The German government ordered Daimler to appear before a commission after local media reported that prosecutors were investigating possible emissions cheating by the auto giant.
Meanwhile, VW subsidiary Audi on Friday recalled up to 850,000 vehicles fitted with a similar software update. The news of the recalls, and of the widening scope of the scandal, comes as many global car companies have announced expanded plans for hybrid and electric vehicles.
Volkswagen, Daimler & BMW – Decades of Collusion Alleged
On July 25, 2017, The New York Times reported that
[o]n Saturday, the German magazine Der Spiegel reported that for decades Volkswagen, Daimler and BMW had colluded to hold down the price of key technologies, including emissions equipment. Among other things, Der Spiegel said, the carmakers agreed in 2006 to limit the size of tanks used to hold a liquid required to neutralize nitrogen oxide fumes.
At least for Volkswagen and its Audi division, the tanks were not big enough to adequately purify the emissions without frequent refills.
Volkswagen and Audi have admitted in court documents that rather than inconvenience owners, they rationed the fluid and allowed the cars to spew more nitrogen oxides than allowed. Daimler and BMW have denied wrongdoing.
Though unproven, the accusations of collusion among the automakers are being taken seriously. The European Commission and the Federal Cartel Office in Germany said they would look into the Spiegel report.
Diesel Emissions – Daimler Summoned To Appear Before A Commission
On July 13, 2017, CNN Money reported that
[t]he German government summoned Daimler to appear before a commission on Thursday after local media reported that prosecutors were investigating possible cheating on emissions tests.
German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported on Wednesday that prosecutors were investigating two engines used in over 1 million cars sold in the U.S. and Europe.
CNN Money also reported that
[t]he commission that Daimler . . . will appear before Thursday was established in 2015 to investigate Volkswagen’s . . . diesel scandal.
The German automaker has admitted to fitting as many as 11 million diesel vehicles worldwide with software that could cheat nitrogen oxide emissions tests.
On July 13, 2017, Fortune reported that
[t]he committee of German lawmakers investigating the Volkswagen emissions scandal has summoned German carmaker Daimler for an extraordinary meeting to address allegations it sold cars with excessive emissions.
Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung, citing a search warrant issued by a Stuttgart court, had reported Wednesday that prosecutors were examining the possible use of illegal software to manipulate emissions tests in Mercedes-Benz vehicles between 2008 and 2016. It said Daimler had sold over a million such cars in Europe and the U.S.[]
In May, Stuttgart prosecutors, who are working with authorities in the U.S,, conducted raids of 11 sites in Germany as part of a probe into Daimler and excessive diesel emissions. The searches were initiated in the course of investigations “against known and unknown employees at Daimler , who are suspected of fraud and misleading advertising connected to manipulated emissions treatment of diesel passenger cars,” the prosecutor’s office said at the time.
Did You Purchase A Mercedes Diesel (Model Years 2011-2014)?
If so, your rights under federal law may have been violated. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney to contribute to or learn more about the investigation, 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].
The 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, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Jul 16, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
On July 5, 2017, The National Law Review reported that “. . . a federal court in New York gave final approval to a $32.5 million class action settlement alleging racial discrimination against African-American employees of MetLife.”
According to the article, “$32.5 million class action settlement in MetLife race discrimination case,” the plaintiffs of the class action lawsuit:
. . . alleged that MetLife discriminated against African-American Financial Services Representatives by hindering their ability to get lucrative accounts, team up with colleagues, and receive training opportunities.
These types of discriminatory barriers are often associated with glass ceiling discrimination, in which high-level employees are unfairly passed over for promotions because of their race, gender, or other protected characteristic.
The National Law Review also reported that
. . . the class size appears to be about 700 people. In particular, the settlement covers African-American or Black Financial Services Representatives who worked for MetLife or New England Life Insurance Co. between May 15, 2011 and July 1, 2016.
On July 4, 2017, BigClassAction.com published a story, “$32.5M MetLife Race Bias Class Action Settlement Approved,” which reported:
The lawsuit was filed in May 2015 by lead plaintiff Marcus Creighton, who was a MetLife employee in Illinois from 2001 to October 2014. Creighton alleged the company was in violation of federal civil rights law by discriminating against [African-American] brokers. Specifically, the suit alleged that MetLife provided very few opportunities for its African American financial services representatives to work with their non-[African-American] colleagues, that it restricted their training opportunities, and prevented them from getting good accounts.
BigClassAction.com also reported:
According to the lawsuit, MetLife lets its financial services representatives form teams with colleagues and combine their client accounts, but “almost entirely exclude[s]” [African-American] financial services representatives from favorable teaming relationships. The complaint also alleged the company steers the most lucrative business opportunities away from [African-American] brokers and denies them equal access to its “Delivering the Promise” training program. This systematic discrimination leads the company to pay [African-American] financial services representatives less than their non[African-American] peers, the lawsuit alleged.
The settlement fund will pay $75,000 to Creighton and $50,000 to six other workers who joined the case as named plaintiffs in an amended complaint filed in April 2016.
On July 12, 2017, Insurance Business reported (“Judge approves MetLife’s $32.5 million race bias class action settlement”) that:
. . . former employees are expected to receive funds from the settlement, and they will be able to choose between two different payment methods, Bloomberg Law reported. On one hand, they can opt to be paid based on their years in the industry, and their time spent with MetLife or its subsidiary, New England Life Insurance. Alternatively, they can opt for a longer process that considers the supposed discrimination an ex-employee faced personally and how it may have harmed his or her career or reputation.
The class action lawsuit is Creighton, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, No. 15-CV-08321 (S.D.N.Y.).
About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
The 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, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated. Together, the partners of the 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.
Jul 12, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Ocular Therapeutix Class Action Lawsuit
As previously posted, a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. (“Ocular”) (NASDAQ: OCUL) and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the federal securities laws.
The class action lawsuit, brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ocular securities between May 5, 2017 through July 6, 2017, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ocular Therapeutix’s management has been misleading investors about DEXTENZA manufacturing issues, including that more than 50% of lots manufactured by Ocular Therapeutix contain bad product; (2) such manufacturing issues could imperil the approval of DEXTENZA by the FDA; and (3) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Ocular Therapeutix investors under the federal securities laws.
Seeking Alpha Reports: “Ocular: A Poke In The Eye”
On Jul 6, 2017, near the close of trading, Seeking Alpha published an article, “Ocular: A Poke In The Eye,” which reported that Ocular’s Dextenza is
- . . . unlikely to get approved by the FDA on July 19 PDUFA date.
- Management has been misleading investors about manufacturing.
- OCUL’s hydrogel technology is worthless at the moment.
According to Seeking Alpha, OCUL “. . . had a lot of potential. Unfortunately, [however,] management has failed to execute and brought the company to the brink of collapse. It is not suprising . . . that the ENTIRE senior management has resigned recently (CFO, CMO and CEO).”
Further, Seeking Alpha reported that
OCUL has disclosed that they received a second 483 from the FDA after their facility re-inspection. Even a layperson . . . can tell that the company is having serious manufacturing issues, and their whole approach to manufacturing and patient safety is highly questionable. What’s more troubling is that either management doesn’t fully understand the letter, or they have been misleading investors. Both are bad. [The second 483 can be read by clicking here: OCUL_Second_483].
Manufacturing Issues & Dextenza
OCUL, according to Seeking Alpha,
. . . has disclosed that they received a second 483 from the FDA after their facility re-inspection. Even a layperson reading this can tell that the company is having serious manufacturing issues, and their whole approach to manufacturing and patient safety is highly questionable. What’s more troubling is that either management doesn’t fully understand the letter, or they have been misleading investors. Both are bad.
Further, Seeking Alpha reported:
First, OCUL has REPEAT observations. Not only did they not resolve prior issues, but have committed worse transgressions. [The first 483 can be read by clicking here: OCUL_483].
Observation 6 reads: “Laboratory controls do not include the establishment of scientifically sound and appropriate test procedures designed to assure that drug products conform to appropriate standards of identity, strength, quality and purity.”
Observation 5 of the second 483 reads: “Laboratory controls do not include the establishment of scientifically sound and appropriate specifications and test procedures designed to assure that drug products conform to appropriate standards of identity, strength, quality and purity.” Sounds familiar?
Observation 3 of the second 483 reads: “There are no written procedures for production and process controls designed to assure that the drug products have the identity, strength, quality, and purity they purport or are represented to possess. Specifically, your firm lacks documentation to show that your product can consistently meet specifications as you have not systemically evaluated the [redacted] lots manufactured from FEB2016 to present, of which [redacted] failed specification and were disposed of in-process[. . . .]”
In plain English, this means, OCUL still doesn’t know to make their product consistently. How does OCUL deal with instances when product doesn’t meet specifications? They have been discarding bad manufacturing lots without investigation.
Second, OCUL has characterized their manufacturing as “in a fully developed mode.” Well, Observation 1 of the second 483 reads: “Particulate matter has been noted in 10/23 lots (intended use clinical, R&D, stability, etc.) manufactured from FEB2016 to date. The remaining [redacted] lots were scrapped prior to the visual inspection therefore their particulate status remains unknown.”
In plain English, this means that more than 50% of lots manufactured by OCUL contain bad product. That leaves plenty of room for additional development. Sometimes, OCUL has had to discard entire lots because they were out of spec!!
Third, if OCUL only discarded bad product without investigation, that would be a bad thing. But in fact, they have been using bad product in clinical trials and have released some into their commercial supply!
Following this news, Ocular’s share price fell 6% on July 6, 2017, and plummeted an additional 25% on July 7, 2017 to $7.12, causing significant harm to investors.
Then, on July 11, 2017, Ocular Therapeutix announced that it received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA denying Ocular’s resubmission of a New Drug Application for Dextenza. According to the company, the FDA’s letter referenced deficiencies in manufacturing processes and analytical testing discovered in the May 2017 inspection. This news sent the share price tumbling in after-hours trading by more than 30%.
Do You Have Ocular Therapeutix Losses?
If you purchased or otherwise acquired shares in Ocular Therapeutix and would like to speak privately with a securities attorney to learn more about the investigation, fill out the form to the right or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
The 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 the 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.
Jul 10, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Replacement Worker, Strike Worker, Lockout Worker or Picketing Worker?
If so, the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating whether Replacement Workers, Strike Workers, Lockout Workers or Picketing Workers have been improperly compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and applicable state wage laws.
Replacement Worker, Strike Worker, Lockout Worker & Picketing Worker Overtime Investigation
The investigation concerns, among other things, whether temporary replacement workers (also referred to as strike workers, lockout workers, and picketing workers) were paid the full and legally mandated overtime premium for hours worked over forty (40) during the workweek, as well as whether employees who “worked off the clock” received overtime pay at a rate not less than one and a half (1½) times the regular rate at which they are employed, as required by the FLSA for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Possible examples of overtime work include, but are not limited to, traveling to and from work in company sponsored vehicles/vans, putting on and removing employer-required uniforms or personal protective equipment (“PPE”) before and after a shift started and ended, and/or working through an allowed lunch or other break.
The investigation also focuses on whether employers kept proper records to sufficiently determine a replacement, strike, lockout, or picketing worker’s wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.
What Can Replacement Workers, Strike Workers, Lockout Workers or Picketing Workers Do If They Believe They Have Been Improperly Compensated?
If any of the examples listed above apply/applied to your work situation, and you would like to explore your rights or potential legal options, please contact our Firm. We would welcome the opportunity to review your circumstances and answer any questions you may have – at no cost or obligation to you. For additional information, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected] or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
According to the United States Department of Labor, the basic requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act are payment of the minimum wage, overtime pay for time worked over 40 hours in a workweek, restrictions on the employment of children, and recordkeeping. More information in this regard can be found on the Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor web page.
The 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, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
