Dec 17, 2021 | Blog, Car Problems Car Complaints
Owners And Lessees Of 2019-2022 Mercedes E-Class, Mercedes CLS-Class, Mercedes GLE 450 & GLS 450 Vehicles Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential consumer class action claims on behalf of owners and lessees of 2019-2022 Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class, Mercedes-Benz GLE 450, and Mercedes-Benz GLS 450 vehicles.
The investigation concerns battery failure of the 48-Volt battery in certain Mercedes vehicles, which can cause a vehicle not to start, thereby requiring towing and/or battery replacement.
Owners And Lessees Of Mercedes-Benz Vehicles Who Have Experienced Battery Failure Are Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., John Kehoe, Esq., [email protected], [email protected], To Learn More About The Battery Defect Investigation Or Potential Legal Claims.
Dec 17, 2021 | Blog, Consumer Protection
The CFPB is concerned about accumulating debt, regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting in a consumer credit market already quickly changing with technology.
Buy now, pay later credit is a type of deferred payment option that generally allows the consumer to split a purchase into smaller installments, typically four or less, often with a down payment of 25 percent due at checkout. The application process is quick, involving relatively little information from the consumer, and the product often comes with no interest. Lenders have touted BNPL as a safer alternative to credit card debt, along with its ability to serve consumers with scant or subprime credit histories.
According to the CFPB, merchants are adopting BNPL programs and are willing to typically pay 3 percent to 6 percent of the purchase price to the companies, similar to credit card interchange fees, because consumers often buy more and spend more with BNPL. Indeed, BNPL’s use has spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic and throughout the holiday shopping season. More and more Americans are using it, and the most recent Black Friday and Cyber Monday shopping weekend saw massive growth in BNPL. This explosive growth has caught the eye of many investors, including significant venture capital money. Big tech companies are also entering the arena.
The law requires that the CFPB monitor consumer financial markets and enables the agency to require market players to submit information to inform this monitoring. The CFPB expects to publish aggregated findings on insights learned from this inquiry. The CFPB Bureau is concerned about the following:
Accumulating Debt
Whereas the old-style layaway installment loans were typically used for the occasional big purchase, people can quickly become regular users of BNPL for everyday discretionary buying, especially if they download the easy-to-use apps or install the web browser plugins. If a consumer has multiple purchases on multiple schedules with multiple companies, it may be hard to keep track of when payments are scheduled. And when there is not enough money in a consumer’s bank account, this can potentially result in charges by both the consumer’s bank and the BNPL provider. Because of the ease of getting these loans, consumers can end up spending more than anticipated.
Regulatory Arbitrage
Some BNPL companies may not be adequately evaluating what consumer protection laws apply to their products. For example, some BNPL products do not provide certain disclosures, which could be required by some laws. And while the BNPL application may look similar to a standard checkout with a credit card, protections that apply to credit cards may not apply to BNPL products. Many BNPL companies do not provide dispute resolution protections available to users of other forms of credit, like credit cards. And finally, depending on what rules the lender is following, different late fees and policies apply.
Data Harvesting
BNPL lenders have access to the valuable payment histories of their customers. Some have used this collected data to create closed loop shopping apps with partner merchants, pushing specific brands and products, often geared toward younger audiences. As competitive forces pressure the merchant discount, lenders will need to find other sources of revenue to maintain growth and profitability. The Bureau would like to better understand practices around data collection, behavioral targeting, data monetization and the risks they may create for consumers.
For more information about BNPL, please click: Know Before You Buy.
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Dec 17, 2021 | Antitrust, Blog
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Is Investigating Whether Engineers Or Other Skilled Employees Of Various Aerospace Companies Were Harmed By Anticompetitive Hiring Practices, Including Aerospace Engineering Companies Pratt & Whitney; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership; Cyient Inc. (Formerly InfoTech); Parametric Solutions, Inc.; & Agilis Engineering, Inc.
If You Were Employed As An Engineer Or Other Skilled Employee At Any Time From 2011 To September 2019 At Pratt & Whitney; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Cyient Inc. (Previously InfoTech); Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc., Or One Of Their Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries, You Are Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. , John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], [email protected], To Discuss The Firm’s Aerospace Antitrust Investigation Or Potential Legal Claims.
Six Aerospace Executives and Managers Indicted For Leading Roles In Labor Market Conspiracy That Limited Workers’ Mobility And Career Prospects
On December 16, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that a federal grand jury in Bridgeport, Connecticut, returned an indictment charging a former manager of a major aerospace engineering company and five executives of outsource engineering suppliers (“Suppliers”) for participating in a long-running conspiracy to restrict the hiring and recruiting of employees among their respective companies. The conspiracy affected thousands of engineers and other skilled workers in the aerospace industry who perform services in the design, manufacturing and servicing of aircraft components for both commercial and military purposes.
According to the one-count felony indictment unsealed today in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, six individuals — Mahesh Patel (“Patel”), of Connecticut; Robert Harvey, of South Carolina; Harpreet Wasan, of Connecticut; Steven Houghtaling, of Connecticut; Tom Edwards, of Connecticut; and Gary Prus, of Florida — conspired with unnamed others to allocate employees by agreeing not to hire or solicit employees from each other’s companies.
This indictment is the first in an ongoing investigation into labor market allocation in the aerospace engineering services industry. Patel, described as a leader of the conspiracy given his position and authority as the Suppliers’ common customer, was previously charged by complaint. He was arrested and appeared before a federal magistrate judge on the charge last week, and was released on a $100,000 appearance bond. The remaining defendants are expected to appear before federal district courts in different districts this week.
According to the indictment, the defendants and co-conspirators recognized the mutual financial benefit of the conspiracy — namely, reducing the rise in labor costs that would occur when aerospace workers were free to find new employment in a competitive environment. Patel and certain other co-conspirators explicitly appealed to this financial benefit when communicating with each other about the agreement.
The maximum penalty under the Sherman Act for a conspiracy to restrain trade is 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of $1 million. 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.
Aerospace “No-Poach” Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
On December 14, 2021, a class action complaint was filed in United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of engineers and other similarly skilled employees, based on alleged unlawful “no-poach” agreements among the aerospace engineering firms, which was intended to restrain competition in the relevant labor markets.
The Defendant aerospace-related companies named in the class action lawsuit (i.e., Pratt & Whitney; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership; Cyient Inc.; Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc.) are major competitors for engineering services, and they compete with one another to attract, hire, and retain engineers and other skilled employees.
According to the complaint, beginning at least as early as 2011 and continuing through at least 2019, senior executives and managers at the Defendant companies entered into a conspiracy not to solicit, recruit, hire without prior approval, or otherwise compete for employees, including engineers and other skilled employees.
Allegedly, the Defendant companies 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 Class Action Complaint.
If You Were Employed As An Engineer Or Other Skilled Employee At Any Time From 2011 To September 2019 At Pratt & Whitney; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Cyient Inc. (Previously InfoTech); Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc., Or One Of Their Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries, You Are Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. , John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], [email protected], To Discuss The Antitrust Investigation Or Potential Legal Claims.
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, Car Problems Car Complaints
Subaru of America, Inc. Recalling Certain 2019-2020 Ascent, 2020 Legacy And Outback Vehicles – Drive Chain May Break Causing Loss Of Drive Power
Your vehicle MAY be involved in a safety recall which MAY create a safety risk for you or your passengers. If left unrepaired, a potential safety defect could lead to injury or even death. Safety defects must be repaired by a dealer at no cost to you. The following MAY APPLY to your vehicle if it is listed below. Please click on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) Recall ID Number below to learn more about the safety issue and the reason for the vehicle recall.
An improperly secured drive chain may slip and break, causing a loss of drive power and increasing the risk of a crash.
Manufacturer: Subaru of America, Inc. (“Subaru”)
Components: POWER TRAIN
Potential Number of Units Affected: 198,255
Summary & Remedy
Subaru is recalling certain 2019-2020 Ascent, 2020 Legacy and Outback vehicles. A programming error in the Transmission Control Unit (“TCU”) may allow the clutch to engage before the drive chain is completely clamped.
Dealers will reprogram the TCU, inspect TCU data for chain slip, and visually inspect the chain guide. If evidence of chain slippage or damage is found, the transmission will be replaced. Repairs will be performed free of charge. Interim owner notification letters are expected to be mailed February 7, 2022. The remedy is expected to be available in April 2022. This recall includes all vehicles previously recalled under 19V-855. Vehicles previously recalled under 19V-855 will need to have the new remedy performed for this recall once available. Owners may contact Subaru customer service at 1-844-373-6614. Subaru’s number for this recall is WRK-21.
Owners may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to nhtsa.gov.
What Is A Vehicle Recall?
When a manufacturer or the NHTSA determines that a vehicle creates an unreasonable risk to safety or fails to meet minimum safety standards, the manufacturer is required to fix that vehicle at no cost to the owner. The fix, or repair, can be accomplished by repairing, replacing, offering a refund (for equipment) or, in rare cases, repurchasing the car/vehicle.
What Should I Do If My Vehicle Is Included In This Recall?
If your vehicle is included in a specific recall, it is very important that you get it fixed as soon as possible given the potential danger to you and your passengers if it is not addressed. You should receive a separate letter in the mail from the vehicle manufacturer, notifying you of the recall and explaining when the remedy will be available, whom to contact to repair your vehicle, and to remind you that the repair will be done at no charge to you. If you believe your vehicle is included in the recall, but you do not receive a letter in the mail from the vehicle manufacturer, please call NHTSA’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236, or contact your vehicle manufacturer or dealership.
For additional recall information, please click Vehicle Recall FAQs.
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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.
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.
