The Kehoe Law Firm, a national securities litigation law firm, is pleased to announce that its client, the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago (“PABF”), has been appointed as the lead plaintiff in the securities class action against Twist Bioscience Corporation. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has granted PABF’s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of its Selection of Lead Counsel.​

This decision comes after a thorough review of several motions to appoint lead plaintiff and select lead counsel in the securities class action governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). Among the competing motions, PABF emerged as the lead plaintiff, showcasing its strong position in the litigation. 

John Kehoe, Partner with the Kehoe Law Firm, expressed his satisfaction with the court’s decision, stating, “We are very pleased that our client, the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, has been chosen to lead this important securities class action litigation. This decision reflects the confidence the court has in our client’s ability to effectively represent the class and pursue justice in this matter.” 

The securities class action alleges that Twist Bioscience Corporation, a biotechnology company specializing in synthetic DNA and DNA products, misled investors about its growth prospects and financial health. The complaint contends that between December 13, 2019, and November 14, 2022, Twist, along with its executives, assured investors of substantial growth, only to face significant setbacks following the release of a critical report by Scorpion Capital.

Scorpion Capital’s report, published on November 15, 2022, raised concerns about Twist’s financial sustainability, likening its DNA chip technology to the infamous Theranos scandal. Following the report, Twist’s stock price experienced a sharp decline, leading to substantial losses for investors. 

PABF’s lead plaintiff appointment underscores the Kehoe Law Firm’s dedication to representing the interests of investors and holding corporations accountable for alleged securities law violations. The firm is committed to working diligently on behalf of its client and the class to pursue a favorable resolution in this litigation.

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676. 

A group of investors in the Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) FG New America Acquisition Corp. (FGNA) filed a lawsuit against several of its executives and directors, accusing them of overselling the value of merger target Opportunity Financial. The lawsuit comes after the value of Opportunity Financial (“OppFi”) plummeted by approximately 80% following the completion of the take-public transaction.​

Former FGNA shareholder Sean Murray lodged the complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, naming the SPAC and certain officers and other board members as defendants. The suit is on behalf of all record and beneficial holders of FGNA common stock who held such stock on the redemption deadline of July 14, 2021, and did not redeem all such shares.​

Kehoe Law Firm Partner Michael Yarnoff, who represents the plaintiffs, expressed confidence in the merits of the lawsuit. “The complaint outlines serious breaches of fiduciary duties and misrepresentations that have harmed the interests of OppFi SPAC investors,” Yarnoff stated. “We believe the evidence strongly supports the allegations, and we are committed to pursuing justice for our clients.” ​

Murray alleges that FGNA and the individual defendants failed to uphold basic principles of Delaware corporate governance, prioritizing their own financial interests over those of the company’s stockholders. The lawsuit contends that decisions were made with a disregard for fiduciary duties, resulting in a value-destructive merger with Opportunity Financial.​

In the complaint, Murray asserts that the defendants granted themselves financial interests misaligned with public stockholders and forced through the merger based on false and misleading disclosures. The lawsuit highlights the issuance of approximately 6.4 million shares of FGNA Class B common stock to the SPAC’s sponsor, FG New America Investors LLC, and the subsequent transfer of 1.2 million “founder shares” to FGNA’s directors and management.​

The complaint contends that these founder shares became valuable only if FGNA closed a merger, creating a strong incentive for the defendants to pursue a business combination and avoid liquidation. This, the plaintiffs argue, compromised the decision-making process and led to a deal that was not in the best interests of public stockholders.​

Notably, Murray alleges that FGNA’s negotiations with Opportunity Financial were tainted by financial conflicts, and the board served merely as a “rubber stamp.” The lawsuit claims that the proxy statement issued by FGNA omitted crucial information about the merger’s value, including high dilution of FGNA shares and misleading representations about Legacy OppFi’s financial projections.​

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact Michael Yarnoff at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

KLF is pleased to announce that our client, FX Primus Ltd., a leading financial services company, scored a significant legal victory before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s prior decision, upholding the rejection of most of the claims brought by AMA Capital, LLC (“AMA”) in an antitrust class-action settlement.​

The settlement agreement in question mandated that claimants provide transactional records to support their claims, with the claims administrator having the discretion to deem documents acceptable. AMA’s claims were rejected, primarily due to its failure to provide the required records. The district court concurred with this decision and denied AMA’s motion for reconsideration.​

On appeal, AMA contended that the district court erred by not considering documents submitted during the post-rejection contest process and by applying improper evidentiary requirements. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the district court’s orders, determining that the claims administrator was not obligated to accept records during the contest process if they were previously available to AMA. The court also found no error in the district court’s denial of AMA’s claims.​

Partner John A. Kehoe, representing FX Primus Ltd., expressed satisfaction with the outcome, stating, “This decision reaffirms the integrity of the settlement agreement, which required claimants to substantiate their claims with acceptable documents. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the stipulated procedures and evidentiary requirements outlined in the settlement agreement.”​

The Kehoe Law Firm remains committed to upholding the principles of fairness and adherence to legal processes in financial matters. The successful resolution of this appeal further reinforces our dedication to ensuring the integrity of class-action settlements.

For more information about the FX indirect purchaser antitrust litigation and the related settlement, please visit the claims administrator’s website, available here:

https://www.fxindirectantitrustsettlement.com/

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Pension Plan and Teamsters Local 710 have moved to intervene in the Abbott Inc. Derivative Litigation pending in the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit, filed in October 2022, alleges wrongdoing by certain officers and directors of Abbott at least during the period from November 19, 2021, through June 8, 2022.​

Specifically, the Individual Defendants are alleged to have breached their fiduciary duties and to have violated federal securities laws by concealing lapses in safety protocols at Abbott’s Sturgis, Michigan facility. These lapses resulted in environmental contamination with Cronobacter sakazakii bacteria, a critical issue affecting the manufacturing of infant formula.​

In February 2022, the FDA reportedly confirmed Cronobacter contamination at the Sturgis facility, leading to a recall of various infant formula products. According to the complaint, Abbott executives portrayed the recall as a proactive measure to protect the public, not disclosing the FDA investigation.

Abbott eventually closed the Sturgis facility due to safety concerns, causing massive formula shortages in the U.S., Canada, and other markets. The federal government invoked the Defense Production Act to address the shortages. ​

In May 2022, the Senate Finance Committee launched an investigation into Abbott’s international tax practices and stock buybacks, linking them to the Sturgis facility issues.  Not until June 2022 did Abbott disclose that it was aware of the whistleblower complaint in early 2021, contributing to a decline in the company’s stock price.​

The actions during the Relevant Period led to significant repercussions, including stock decline, a class action lawsuit, and potential liability exposure for Abbott.

SEPTA and Teamsters Local 710 have moved to intervene in this derivative action, captioned In Re Abbott Laboratories Infant Formula Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 1:22-CV-5513 (N.D. IL), thereby demonstrating their commitment to protecting shareholder interests and holding Abbott’s officers and directors accountable for alleged misconduct.​

John A. Kehoe, Partner at Kehoe Law Firm, commented: “We are pleased to see Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Pension Plan and Teamsters Local 710 take a stand in intervening in the Abbott shareholder derivative action. Institutional shareholders play a crucial role in holding corporations accountable for their actions and advocating for positive governance reforms. This intervention marks a step towards transparency, accountability, and responsible corporate practices.” 

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

In a groundbreaking development, a federal judge has refused to dismiss significant claims in the Corvette Cracked Wheels Lawsuit, paving the way for justice in the ongoing legal battle against General Motors (GM). The lawsuit alleges that certain Chevrolet Corvette models suffer from cracked, bent, and warped wheels, and the recent decision by the judge ensures that many of the claims will move forward.​

The class action lawsuit, which includes 2015-19 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 and 2017-2019 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport cars, alleges GM of equipped the vehicles with cast aluminum alloy wheels unable to withstand the torque and power generated by the cars. The plaintiffs argue that the cast wheels are too weak, and GM allegedly knew that forged rims would have been a more suitable choice. Additionally, the lawsuit claims GM used insufficient material to save on suspension weight, leading to deformed and cracked wheels that could cost thousands of dollars to replace.​

Michael Yarnoff, Partner with the Kehoe Law Firm, expressed his satisfaction with the judge’s decision, stating, “We are very pleased with the court’s ruling, which acknowledges the validity of our claims and allows us to continue seeking justice on behalf of the affected Corvette owners.”​

The lawsuit alleges that Corvette owners experience wobbling and vibrations when the rims deform, and cracks in the wheels can lead to loss of air pressure, making the cars unsafe. The plaintiffs contend that GM replaces the defective wheels with equally defective ones, putting owners at continued risk.

GM’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit faced resistance from the judge, who ruled against the automaker’s arguments, allowing express warranty claims, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claims, and other crucial claims to proceed. Despite GM’s motion to dismiss MMWA claims based on the number of plaintiffs, the judge permitted the claims to move forward with the existing eighteen plaintiffs.​

The legal battle, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, is gaining momentum as the judge’s decision marks a pivotal moment for the Corvette owners seeking resolution for their wheel-related issues. Kehoe Law Firm remains committed to representing the interests of the affected consumers and seeks a fair resolution for those impacted by the alleged defects.​

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact Michael Yarnoff at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

The Kehoe Law Firm, a leading national law firm specializing in antitrust and consumer protection litigation, has filed a civil antitrust action against Google under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The class action complaint, filed on behalf of the Sterling International Consulting Group and those similarly situated, alleges that Google has engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to dominate the Publisher Ad Server Market, resulting in artificially inflated prices for publisher ad server services.​

The plaintiff in this case operates a website that sells digital display ads to advertisers. The complaint contends that Google has established and maintained a monopoly in the Publisher Ad Server Market, giving it the power to manipulate prices charged to Publishers, such as the plaintiffs.​

According to John A. Kehoe, a partner at the Kehoe Law Firm, “Google’s anticompetitive actions have had a significant impact on the Publisher Ad Server Market, leading to higher costs for Publishers and limiting their options. This case aims to address the harm caused by Google’s dominance and seeks compensatory and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.”​

The complaint outlines Google’s control over various levels of the Ad Tech Stack, including publisher ad server products, ad exchange, ad network, and advertiser ad server. It alleges that Google’s series of anticompetitive acts, dating back to at least 2007, have illegally enhanced and maintained its dominant position in the Publisher Ad Server Market.​

The complaint alleges that Google’s acquisitions, exclusionary conduct, and measures to impair potential rivals have stifled competition and harmed plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. The complaint seeks compensatory and injunctive relief for violations of the Sherman Act.

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

The Kehoe Law Firm, a leading national law firm specializing in antitrust and consumer protection litigation, has filed a civil antitrust action against Google under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The class action complaint, filed on behalf of the Sterling International Consulting Group and those similarly situated, alleges that Google has engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to dominate the Publisher Ad Server Market, resulting in artificially inflated prices for publisher ad server services.​

The plaintiff in this case operates a website that sells digital display ads to advertisers. The complaint contends that Google has established and maintained a monopoly in the Publisher Ad Server Market, giving it the power to manipulate prices charged to Publishers, such as the plaintiffs.​

According to John A. Kehoe, a partner at the Kehoe Law Firm, “Google’s anticompetitive actions have had a significant impact on the Publisher Ad Server Market, leading to higher costs for Publishers and limiting their options. This case aims to address the harm caused by Google’s dominance and seeks compensatory and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.”​

The complaint outlines Google’s control over various levels of the Ad Tech Stack, including publisher ad server products, ad exchange, ad network, and advertiser ad server. It alleges that Google’s series of anticompetitive acts, dating back to at least 2007, have illegally enhanced and maintained its dominant position in the Publisher Ad Server Market.​

The complaint alleges that Google’s acquisitions, exclusionary conduct, and measures to impair potential rivals have stifled competition and harmed plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. The complaint seeks compensatory and injunctive relief for violations of the Sherman Act.

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.