Dec 16, 2021 | Antitrust, Blog
Pratt & Whitney; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership; Cyient Inc.; Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc., Et Al Subject Of “No-Poach” Antitrust Suit Alleging Claims Under The Sherman Act
On December 14, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against Pratt & Whitney, a Division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership; Cyient Inc.; Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc.; Mahesh Patel; Robert Harvey; Harpreet Wasan; Thomas Edwards; Gary Prus; Frank O’Neill; and others, as of yet unknown, for claims under the Sherman Act to recover damages and other relief for the substantial injuries Plaintiff and others similarly situated have sustained arising from the Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct.
The class action, according to the complaint, stems from alleged unlawful agreements among the aerospace engineering firm Defendants to restrain competition in the labor markets in which they compete for employees who, principally, are engineers and other skilled employees in the aerospace industry. The Defendants are major competitors for engineering services, and they compete with each other to attract, hire, and retain skilled employees, including engineers and other skilled employees.
Beginning, however, at least as early as 2011 and continuing through at least 2019, senior executives and managers at Defendants, allegedly, entered into a conspiracy not to solicit, recruit, hire without prior approval, or otherwise compete for employees, including engineers and other skilled employees (the “no-poach agreement”).
The antitrust class action complaint alleges that the Defendants agreed to restrict competition for their employees’ services with the purpose and effect of fixing, suppressing, and stabilizing wages, salaries, and benefits and restraining competition in the market for their employees’ services. Further, the Defendants’ agreement to fix, suppress, and stabilize wages, salaries and benefits also, according to the complaint, restricted their employees’ mobility to access better job opportunities.
To view a copy of the antitrust class action complaint, please click Aerospace Engineering Complaint.
If You Were Employed As An Engineer Or Other Skilled Employee At Any Time From 2011 To September 2019 At Pratt & Whitney, a Division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership; Cyient Inc.; Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc., Or One Of Their Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries, You Are Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. By Completing The Form On The Right Or Via [email protected], For A Free, No-Obligation Evaluation Of Potential Legal Claims.
Dec 15, 2021 | Blog, Data Breach
Company’s Data Breach Potentially Impacted 750,000 Patients And 522 Current/Former Oregon Anesthesiology Group Employees
In a December 6, 2021 Notice of Data Breach, Oregon Anesthesiology Group, P.C. (“OAG”) stated that OAG “. . . experienced a cyberattack on July 11, [2021] after which [OAG was] briefly locked out of [its] servers.”
The data breach notice stated that
[o]n October 21, the FBI notified OAG that it had seized an account belonging to HelloKitty, a Ukrainian hacking group, which contained OAG patient and employee files. The FBI believes HelloKitty exploited a vulnerability in [OAG’s] third-party firewall, enabling the hackers to gain entry to the network. According to the cyber forensics report obtained by OAG in late November, the cybercriminals, once inside, were able to data-mine the administrator’s credentials and access OAG’s encrypted data.
Patient information potentially involved in this incident included names, addresses, date(s) of service, diagnosis and procedure codes with descriptions, medical record numbers, insurance provider names, and insurance ID numbers. OAG does not store patients’ full medical records or their Social Security or credit card numbers, and these data were not involved. The cybercriminals also potentially accessed current and former OAG employee data, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers and other details from W-2 forms on file.
OAG also stated in its data breach notice that “[t]he data breach potentially impacted about 750,000 patients and 522 current and former OAG employees.” [All emphasis added.]
Have You Been Impacted By A Data Breach?
If so, please complete the form on the right or contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., [email protected], for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Examples of the type of relief sought by data privacy class actions, include, but are not limited to, reimbursement of identity theft losses and of out-of-pocket costs paid by data breach victims for protective measures such as credit monitoring services, credit reports, and credit freezes; compensation for time spent responding to the breach; imposition of credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, paid for by the defendant company; and improvements to the defendant company’s data security systems.
Data privacy class actions are brought on a contingent-fee basis; thus, plaintiffs and the class members do not pay out-of-pocket attorney’s fees or litigation costs. Subject to court approval, attorney’s fees and litigation costs are derived from the recovery obtained for the class.
Dec 15, 2021 | Antitrust, Blog
Executive Charged For Playing Key Role In Long-Running Antitrust Conspiracy That Illegally Limited Workers’ Career Prospects And Earnings
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut unsealed a criminal complaint accusing a former aerospace outsourcing executive of participating in a long-running conspiracy with managers and executives of several outsource engineering suppliers (“Suppliers”) to restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and other skilled laborers among their respective companies.
According to the filed documents, Mahesh Patel (“Patel”), of Glastonbury, Connecticut, a former director of global engineering services at a major aerospace engineering company, enforced this agreement while serving as an intermediary between conspiring Suppliers. Patel appeared remotely before a federal court in Hartford, Connecticut after his arrest on the complaint charging him with conspiracy in restraint of trade. He was released on conditions including travel restrictions and a $100,000 appearance bond. The charge against Patel is the first in this ongoing federal antitrust investigation.
According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, Patel upheld a conspiracy among aerospace companies not to hire or recruit one another’s employees. At times, Patel confronted and berated Suppliers who cheated on the agreement, often at the direct behest of another Supplier, and threatened to punish nonconforming Suppliers by taking away valuable access to projects. In addition, as the complaint alleges, Patel and co-conspirators recognized the mutual financial benefit of this agreement — namely, reducing the rise in labor costs that would occur when aerospace workers were free to find new employment in a competitive environment.
The maximum penalty for conspiracy to restrain trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act is 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of $1 million for individuals. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime if either amount is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
A criminal complaint is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, justice.gov.
Dec 13, 2021 | Blog
Investors Should Be Aware Of Communications, Including Phone Calls, Voicemails, Emails, And Letters That May Falsely Appear To Be From The SEC
The SEC recently advised that it is aware that several individuals recently received phone calls or voicemail messages that appeared to be from an SEC phone number. The calls and messages raised purported concerns about unauthorized transactions or other suspicious activity in the recipients’ checking or cryptocurrency accounts. According to the SEC, these phone calls and voicemail messages are in no way connected to the SEC. If you receive a communication that appears to be from the SEC, do not provide any personal information unless you have verified that you are dealing with the SEC. The SEC does not seek money from any person or entity as a penalty or disgorgement for alleged wrongdoing outside of its formal Enforcement process.
SEC staff do not make unsolicited communications – including phone calls, voicemail messages, or emails – asking for payments related to enforcement actions, offering to confirm trades, or seeking detailed personal and financial information. Investors, you should be skeptical if you are contacted by someone claiming to be from the SEC and asking about your shareholdings, account numbers, PIN numbers, passwords, or other information that may be used to access your financial accounts. Again, the SEC cautions to never provide information to someone claiming to be from the SEC, until you have verified that the person actually works for the SEC.
How Can You Confirm That You Are Dealing With The SEC?
If you receive an unsolicited communication from someone claiming to be from the SEC, use the SEC’s personnel locator at (202) 551-6000 to reach the staff member directly and ask the person if the communication was from them. You can also call (800) SEC-0330 or e-mail [email protected] to check if a communication is from the SEC.
If you receive a communication that falsely appears to be from the SEC, submit a complaint at sec.gov/oig to the SEC’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) or call the OIG’s toll-free hotline at (833) SEC-OIG1 (732-6441).
Additional Information For Investors
Investor Alert: When Engaging With the SEC on Social Media, Use Our Verified Accounts and Be Alert for Impersonators (Sept. 2018)
Investor Alert: SEC Impersonators Pretend to Help Investors Buy Stock (Apr. 2018)
Investor Alert: Beware of Government Impersonators Targeting Fraud Victims (June 2016)
Updated Investor Alert: SEC Warns of Government Impersonators Demanding Money (Aug. 2015)
Source: Investor.gov
Dec 13, 2021 | Blog
Important Information For Consumers About Understanding Common Bank Deposit Account Fees, The Options Available, And Ways Consumers Can Minimize Or Avoid Bank Fees
Deposit Account Fees
Banks are required under federal law to disclose any fees they charge in connection with a deposit account. Ask your bank, or any bank you are considering opening an account with, for the account opening disclosure and fee schedule. All deposit-related fees that your bank can charge must be listed in these documents. Common fees might include monthly maintenance or automated teller machine (“ATM”) withdrawal fees.
Overdraft Fees
Overdraft fees occur when you don’t have enough money in your account to cover your transactions. The cost for overdraft fees varies by bank, but they may cost around $35 per transaction. These fees can add up quickly and can have ripple effects that are costly. Some banks also may charge what are known as continuous overdraft fees, or daily overdraft fees. These are charges assessed every day the account remains overdrawn.
In general, for debit card transactions at ATMs or at merchants, consumers must opt-in, or agree up front, that the bank can charge you an overdraft fee for any debit card transaction that overdraws the account. If you do not opt-in, you cannot be charged a fee; however, your bank may refuse your purchase if it will overdraw your account.
If you do opt-in for overdraft protection or coverage, then your bank may pay a debit card purchase or ATM transaction, even if the transaction overdraws your account. You will be charged any overdraft fees that are incurred as a result. The opt-in form should be provided by your bank with the other account opening disclosures. If you change your mind at any time after opting-in, you can still opt-out by contacting your bank.
If you have a separate savings account, you might think about linking your savings account to your checking account when your bank provides this option. If you overdraw your checking account, the bank can pull funds from your savings to cover the shortage, as long as you have enough funds available. Your bank may still charge you a fee for transferring the funds automatically, but it is typically less than an overdraft charge.
“NSF” Fees
While you have a choice to opt-in or opt-out of overdraft coverage for debit card transactions, you may not have a choice when it comes to using paper checks or other ways of making payments or purchases from your account. Keeping track of your account balance will help you avoid charges for overdrawing your account in those situations, and also if you choose to opt-in for debit card transactions. Banks are not required to obtain your opt-in for Non-Sufficient Fund (“NSF”) fees. If you write a check for more money than you have in your account without any overdraft coverage, the check will not be paid but you will still be charged an NSF fee.
Also, Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) transactions, such as your direct payment or bill pay services, may be declined if you do not have enough funds in your account and be subject to an NSF fee.
Banks typically charge a NSF fee for each transaction, and these fees too can be costly as they can have ripple effects similar to overdraft fees. It is your responsibility to stay current with the checks and transactions you have made from your bank account. Make sure to look at your bank statements and try to use online banking and alerts to help you keep track of your bank account transactions.
Monthly Maintenance Fees
Banks can charge a monthly fee to maintain deposit accounts. These fees may be lower or waived in certain situations, such as when you have direct deposit, maintain a minimum balance, or make a certain number of transactions each month. You might consider a bank that allows you to avoid monthly maintenance fees by direct depositing your paycheck. Ask if other fees can be waived with direct deposit. Signing up for paperless statements and getting multiple products from one bank (instead of several banks) may be a way to eliminate some monthly maintenance fees.
Minimum Balance Fees
Some accounts may have a minimum balance requirement to avoid a fee. If you are required to have a minimum balance in your account, be sure to maintain that balance to avoid fees. Ask if your bank offers low balance alerts to notify you, so that you don’t unknowingly drop below the minimum balance requirement.
ATM Fees
Some banks charge for using ATMs not in their network. To avoid charges, use only the ATMs that are in your bank’s network, or those that allow you to use your ATM or debit card for free. Also, ask if your bank reimburses you for using any ATMs outside its network. Some banks will do that for a certain number of transactions per year.
Finding The Right Bank Account
The FDIC recommends comparison shopping at a number of banks before you open an account. To help you choose an account based on what is important to you, use the FDIC’s checklist: How to Pick a Bank Account. Choose the services you need and skip those that you don’t, especially if they come with a price tag. Get a copy of the bank’s deposit account disclosure and fee schedule, and read them carefully so you know the cost of the services you require. Choose the account that has the services you need at the lowest cost.
Today, there are more transaction account options than ever before. Some banks offer customers the option of a ‘checkless’ checking account. These card-based accounts may offer consumers the ability to avoid overdraft charges completely. There are also banks that offer accounts with low-fees, and no overdraft or NSF fees, such as Bank On certified accounts. These accounts may also provide other free services such as ATM withdrawals. To obtain additional information on these low-fee bank accounts, please click #GetBanked.
The FDIC also recommends to call your bank and ask if they can waive fees you have incurred, especially if you have not had a lot of fees in the past. If your bank cannot waive specific fees, ask if the bank has a different account that does not have fees for the services you need. If not, and you find the fee to be costly, consider shopping around for an account at a different bank.
For additional information, please click the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s New insights on bank overdraft fees and 4 ways to avoid them.
Source: FDIC.gov
Dec 8, 2021 | Blog
Gift Cards As Scam Payment Method – According To The FTC, $148 Million Reported Lost In First Nine Months Of 2021, More Than All Of 2020
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that a Federal Trade Commission data spotlight shows that in the first nine months of 2021, consumers reported losing $148 million in scams where gift cards were used as the form of payment, an amount more than was reported in all of 2020.
Nearly 40,000 consumers reported using gift cards to pay a scammer in that time period. Most often, according to the FTC, consumers reported paying scammers who were impersonating large companies or government agencies.
One new development noted in the FTC’s data spotlight is the emergence of Target gift cards as the most popular choice for scammers in the reports received by the FTC. Target gift cards accounted for about $35 million in payments to scammers, more than twice as much as any other brand of gift cards. The median amount lost when consumers paid with Target gift cards, $2,500, was higher than any other brand of card, with nearly a third reporting losses of $5,000 or more.
Scammers also instructed consumers to purchase gift cards, regardless of the brand of card, from a Target store more often than any other location, according to the spotlight.
Since 2018, both the numbers of consumers filing reports in which gift cards were the form of payment to scammers and the amount they have reported lost have increased steadily. The spotlight also notes that consumers’ median reported loss to scammers when they pay with gift cards has increased from $700 to $1000.
The FTC has resources for consumers, including information on how to contact gift card companies to try to stop payments to scammers at ftc.gov/giftcards. The agency also has information for gift card retailers, including materials that can be posted in stores and used to train employees at ftc.gov/StopGiftCardScams.
Source: FTC.gov
