Latest Posts

Saraki, Adeosun Deny N10 billion Fraud Scandal As Saraki Threatens To File Law Suit

The Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun, has reacted to a PREMIUM TIMES report detailing how her ministry illegally approved N10 billion for the National Assembly.

The report, published on Friday, indicated that Mrs Adeosun released the billions to the lawmakers despite the N125billion appropriated for the federal legislature in the 2017 fiscal year for recurrent and capital expenditures.

The fund was arbitrarily approved for the lawmakers by the minister in collusion with the Accountant General of the Federation, Ahmed Idris.


Investigations by PREMIUM TIMES also showed that at least 44 of the 82 contractors the leadership of the National Assembly claimed they were owing were not registered on the National Database of Contractors, a database of the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP). That means they are not eligible to be awarded federal contracts.

A further check by this newspaper revealed that 17 of the 44 firms were not even registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

In a statement by her media aide, Oluyinka Akintunde, Friday evening, the minister confirmed releasing the fund, but said her action remained legal.

Describing PREMIUM TIMES report as ‘defective,’ Mrs Adeosun claimed that warrants were issued before the billions were moved to the lawmakers.

“The attention of the Honourable Minister of Finance, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, has been drawn to a smear campaign by an online medium, Premium Times, of “illegally sharing of N10 billion from the national treasury”.

“The Honourable Minister wishes to debunk the entire mischievous and made-up report of the online medium which negates the ethics and professionalism of journalism. The article displays a worrying lack of understanding of Appropriation, Payments and Control, and therefore be disregarded by the public.

“The Minister further wishes to state that warrants are issued in accordance with Appropriation and after due approval by the Cash Plan Committee chaired by the Minister.”

The statement however failed to explain the process of approval for such warrant.

The minister did not also address salient issues such as the release of funds outside the budget and award of contracts to unqualified companies.

Mrs Adeosun did not also explain why she failed to conduct further due diligence by asking for evidence that the contracts were duly awarded before she approved the funds for the lawmakers.

Another explanation the minister failed to make is why her ministry preferred to give N10billion of the N20billion allocated for the payments of federal contractors to the National Assembly which has a budget that covers all its recurrent and capital spendings


Saraki threatens lawsuit over report on alleged N10billion fraud

Rattled by our report that the National Assembly under his leadership illegally received N10billion from the treasury, the President of the Senate, Bukola Saraki, has threatened to sue PREMIUM TIMES over the publication.

The story entitled: “EXCLUSIVE: Minister Adeosun, Saraki, Dogara, Accountant General in N10 billion fraud scandal”, unearthed the irregularities in the receipt and disbursement of the fund.

The report, published on Friday, indicated the billions were released to the lawmakers despite the N125billion appropriated for the federal legislature in the 2017 fiscal year for recurrent and capital expenditures.

The fund was arbitrarily approved for the lawmakers by the Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun, in collusion with the Accountant General of the Federation, Ahmed Idris, the report said.

Investigations by PREMIUM TIMES also showed that at least 44 of the 82 contractors Messrs Saraki and Dogara claimed they were owing were not registered on the National Database of Contractors, a database of the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP). That means they are not eligible to be awarded federal contracts.


A further check by this newspaper revealed that 17 of the 44 firms were not even registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

But rather than respond to the substantive issues raised in the report, Mr. Saraki is claiming that he cannot be held liable for how funds are disbursed to the National Assembly and how they are spent.

He is arguing that the top civil servants in the legislature are those that should be made to render accounts.

It did not matter to the Senate President that he is the chairman of the National Assembly, and that the bucks largely stop at his table.

In a statement by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Yusuph Olaniyonu, the senator challenged the facts presented by PREMIUM TIMES saying they were incorrect.

Mr Saraki announced that he would initiate legal action on the matter.

READ THE FULL STATEMENT BELOW:

Premium Times Should Have Known Better: Response to False Publication from Online Platform

Again, our attention has been drawn to a publication by Premium Times which unethically alleges without any proof, reference, attribution or justification that the Senate President, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki, was involved in receiving or sharing any unauthorized funds.

The article, entitled “EXCLUSIVE: Minister Adeosun, Saraki, Dogara, Accountant General in N10 billion fraud scandal”, in both its style, substance, and deliberate spin struggles to connect the Senate President to the receipt and apportioning of funds which the publication describes as “illegal.”

In the absence of any doubt, the Senate President has nothing to do with any payment, receipt or disbursement of any extra-budgetary funds.

It is also important to state for the record that the Premium Times article in question is pure and unmitigated false news. A simple check by Premium Times would have revealed that all funds in the National Assembly are in the custody of the National Assembly Management, which is headed by the Clerk, and not its presiding officers.

Additionally, all contract awards are equally overseen by the National Assembly management, not the presiding officers.

We are aware that for some weeks now, Premium Times has had this story. However, they only contacted us on Wednesday, and the Clerk of the National Assembly, after a phone call from the Special Adviser on Media & Publicity to the Senate President, promised to give them all necessary explanation and documents on this issue.

However, it is obvious that in the bid to rope in Senator Saraki, the reporters of Premium Times could not wait to see the Clerk and rushed to publish the story with outright falsehood​s ​less than 24 hours after the clerk made the aforementioned promise.

We are surprised that without any proof whatsoever, Premium Times was using expressions like: “Senate President Bukola Saraki and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, have just illegally received and shared”; “Saraki and Dogara submitted”; and “Investigations by PREMIUM TIMES showed that at least 44 of the 82 contractors Messrs Saraki and Dogara…” These are highly defamatory and careless expressions.

It is expected, that the Editors of Premium Times will not be ignorant of the internal procurement and payment process in an organization like the National Assembly that they have covered and “investigated” for as long as they (Premium Times) has been in existence.

We consider this as part of the orchestrated campaign of calumny being waged against Dr. Saraki by some political elements using media platforms in which they have interests.

In this regard, for this careless and unwarranted assault on the person of the Senate President — after several previous warnings — the lawyers of the Senate President, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki, will be initiating legal action on this particular matter.

Finally, we ask the public to disregard the Premium Times piece, and take it for what it is, and will continue to be: “Fake News.”

END

Signed:

Yusuph Olaniyonu

Special Adviser on Media & Publicity to the President of the Senate

Go to Source

How firms you have never interacted with can target Facebook

Advertisers are seemingly able to access accounts with no input from the user

Silhouettes of mobile users



Two hundred accounts were on Alex Hern’s list – on a placeholder account with unused email address.
Photograph: Dado Ruvic/Reuters

On one of Facebook’s myriad setting screens, a place where few dare tread, is a list of places you’ve probably never heard of, all of whom insist that they know you. It’s emblematic of the data protection issues Facebook is struggling to address in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, of the fact that these problems spread far beyond Facebook, and of the easy solutions the company could take if only it had the courage.

This list is the collection of “advertisers you’ve interacted with”. You can find it halfway down your ad preferences screen, below a list of algorithmically suggested topics that Facebook thinks you’re interested in (if you’re a heavy user, these may be scarily accurate; if you’re not, they’ll likely be hilariously off).

A layperson may think the list of advertisers you’ve interacted with contains… advertisers you’ve interacted with. And some sub-sections do. The tab “whose website or app you’ve used” is self-explanatory – if you’ve logged in to a website or app through Facebook, well, that company knows who you are and can now advertise to you. The same is true if you visit a website that has Facebook’s tracking pixel on it (the “who you’ve visited” list) or, most obviously, if you’ve already clicked on an ad before (“whose ads you’ve clicked”).

Screengrab

A smattering of the businesses who have Alex Hern’s email address. Photograph: Facebook

But the largest list is titled “who have added their contact list to Facebook”. And for me it’s a long list of companies you have never done business with, interacted with – or even knew existed.

My list – on a placeholder Facebook account with no friends, created using an email address I don’t hand out for mailing lists – contained almost 200 advertisers, including an Italian restaurant in Perth, Australia; a waffle shop in Charlottenburg, Germany; and a surf cafe in Dubai.

Facebook’s explanation for the list is simple enough: “These advertisers are running ads using a contact list they uploaded that includes your contact information,” the company tells users. “This information was collected by the advertiser, likely after you shared your email address with them or another business they’ve partnered with.”

Advertisers are not allowed to simply buy a list of email addresses and upload them, or harvest them from the internet and sign people up to their mailing lists without consent. That is not only against most nations’ data protection laws, it is also against Facebook’s terms of service, which require that advertisers “have provided appropriate notice to and secured any necessary consent from the data subjects”.

Yet those terms of service have not stopped just that from happening. The lure of extending your targeted advertising just a little bit further is just too strong. Shady data brokers will happily sell you a list of email addresses perfectly profiled for your restaurant to advertise to, and if you do not want to pay, well you can just jump on the dark web and download millions from one of the large dumps made public over the past decade.

That’s not to say I am powerless. Facebook provides me with the ability to opt out of advertising from those companies, just by clicking a cross in the corner. All I need to do is devote some time to clicking a small button 174 times in a row and I am free from those companies – at least until the next 174 decide to upload my information.

What I cannot do is anything with real power. I cannot tell Facebook that the vast majority of these companies cannot possibly have acquired my email address legitimately; I cannot opt out of them all at once, defenestrating advertisers in their masses with a single click; and I certainly cannot request that no company be able to target me simply by uploading an easily guessable address to the site.

When it rolled out its new privacy policies in advance of GDPR, Facebook stood fast against some observers who believe complying with the law requires offering the option to opt out of targeted advertising altogether. Instead, the company took a slimmed-down approach, allowing users to limit the kinds of data that advertisers can target with, but insisting that targeting overall was fine.

It may still be. But I’m not sure many users will take a look at the state of targeted advertising today, as reflected on their own Facebook settings pages, and conclude that everything is working as it should.

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT:  Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Overstock.com, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – OSTK

SHAREHOLDER ALERT:  Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Overstock.com, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – OSTK – World News Report – EIN News

Trusted News Since 1995

A service for global professionals
·
Sunday, April 22, 2018

·
443,347,873
Articles


·
3+ Million Readers

News Monitoring and Press Release Distribution Tools

News Topics

Newsletters

Press Releases

Events & Conferences

RSS Feeds

Other Services

Questions?

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Myriad Genetics, Inc. and Certain Officers – MYGN

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Myriad Genetics, Inc. and Certain Officers – MYGN – World News Report – EIN News

Trusted News Since 1995

A service for global professionals
·
Saturday, April 21, 2018

·
443,222,533
Articles


·
3+ Million Readers

News Monitoring and Press Release Distribution Tools

News Topics

Newsletters

Press Releases

Events & Conferences

RSS Feeds

Other Services

Questions?

Wall Street banks profit big off Trump tax law

NEW YORK — The nation’s six big Wall Street banks posted record, or near record, profits in the first quarter, and they can thank one person in particular: President Trump.

While higher interest rates allowed banks to earn more from lending in the first quarter, the main boost to banks came from the billions of dollars they saved in taxes under the tax law Trump signed in December.

Combined, the six banks saved at least $3.59 billion last quarter, according to an Associated Press estimate, using the bank’s tax rates going back to 2015.

Big publicly traded banks — such JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America — typically kick off the earnings season.

The reports for the January-March quarter are giving investors and the public their first glimpse into how the new tax law is impacting Corporate America.

Before the change in tax law, the maximum U.S. corporate income tax rate was 35%, not including what companies paid in state income taxes.

Banks historically paid some of the highest taxes among the major industries, because of their U.S.-centric business models.

Before the Trump tax cuts, these banks paid between 28 to 31% of their income each year in corporate taxes. The results released over the past week show how sharply those rates have dropped.

JPMorgan Chase said it had a first-quarter tax rate of 18.3%, Goldman Sachs paid just 17.2% in taxes, and the highest-taxed bank of the six majors, Citigroup, had a tax rate of 23.7%.

This is just one quarter’s results, however, and bank executives at the big six firms have estimated that their full-year tax rates will be something closer to 20% to 22%.

In its calculation, the AP used an average of full-year tax rates paid by the banks in 2015 and 2016. Full-year tax rates for 2017 were excluded from the calculation since all the banks, with the exception of Wells Fargo, had to take significant one-time charges late last year to come into compliance with the new tax law.

These charges were largely accounting adjustments but caused most of the banks to report a much higher tax rate in 2017 than they would have historically. Including them in the calculations would have distorted the amount of tax savings each bank would have hypothetically had.

The AP’s calculations are roughly in line with what Wall Street analysts predicted earlier this year.

A report by bank industry analyst Mike Mayo of Wells Fargo Securities estimated that that the big U.S. banks combined would save roughly $19 billion in taxes for the full year. “If there was one significant factor this quarter for the big banks that I follow, it was taxes,” said James Shanahan, an analyst with Edward Jones.

Bank executives have said the majority of the savings from the lower tax rates will be returned to shareholders in the form of higher dividends and stock buybacks.

Some of the money has gone toward higher wages for employees, and new business investments.

JPMorgan Chase announced soon after Trump signed the tax law into effect that it would open branches in Washington, D.C., Boston and Philadelphia, all markets where it currently does not have a branch network. Bank of America also announced a branch expansion this year, fueled partly by the tax cuts.

One large financial company that was not included in the AP’s estimate was American Express.

The credit card giant saw its effective tax rate drop from 33% in 2016 to 21.5% this past quarter.

American Express paid $262 million less in taxes this past quarter than it would have under the old tax rate. American Express also reported near-record profits last quarter.

Join the Conversation:
facebook
Tweet

Go to Source

Big banks saved $3.6B in taxes last quarter under new tax law

This Sept. 13, 2014, file photo, shows the Chase bank logo in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, File)

This Sept. 13, 2014, file photo, shows the Chase bank logo in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, File)

NEW YORK – The nation’s six big Wall Street banks posted record, or near record, profits in the first quarter, and they can thank one person in particular: President Donald Trump.

While higher interest rates allowed banks to earn more from lending in the first quarter, the main boost to bank came from the billions of dollars they saved in taxes under the tax law Trump signed in December. Combined, the six banks saved at least $3.59 billion last quarter, according to an Associated Press estimate, using the bank’s tax rates going back to 2015.

Big publicly traded banks – such JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America – typically kick off the earnings season. Their reports for the January-March quarter are giving investors and the public their first glimpse into how the new tax law is impacting Corporate America.

Before the change in tax law, the maximum U.S. corporate income tax rate was 35 percent, not including what companies paid in state income taxes. Banks historically paid some of the highest taxes among the major industries, due to their U.S.-centric business models. Before the Trump tax cuts, these banks paid between 28 to 31 percent of their income each year in corporate taxes.

The results released over the past week show how sharply those rates have dropped. JPMorgan Chase said it had a first-quarter tax rate of 18.3 percent, Goldman Sachs paid just 17.2 percent in taxes, and the highest-taxed bank of the six majors, Citigroup, had a tax rate of 23.7 percent. This is just one quarter’s results, however, and bank executives at the big six firms have estimated that their full-year tax rates will be something closer to 20 percent to 22 percent.

In its calculation, the AP used an average of full-year tax rates paid by the banks in 2015 and 2016. Full-year tax rates for 2017 were excluded from the calculation since all the banks, with the exception of Wells Fargo, had to take significant one-time charges late last year to come into compliance with the new tax law.

These charges were largely accounting adjustments but caused most of the banks to report a much higher tax rate in 2017 than they would have historically. Including them in the calculations would have distorted the amount of tax savings each bank would have hypothetically had.

Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Myriad Genetics, Inc. and Certain Officers – MYGN

NEW YORK, Apr 21, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) —

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Myriad Genetics, Inc. (“Myriad” or the “Company”)

MYGN, -0.48%

and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Utah, and docketed under 18-cv-00336, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise, acquired common shares of Myriad between August 13, 2014, and March 12, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Myriad securities between August 13, 2014, and March 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until June 19, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Myriad develops and markets molecular diagnostic products to provide physicians with information to help guide the care of their patients, to prevent disease, delay the onset of disease, and catch disease at an early stage. Myriad purports to employ a variety of proprietary techniques designed to provide an understanding of the genetic basis of disease and the role of genes in the onset, progression, and treatment of disease.

Established in 1978, the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (“HCPCS”) provides a standardized coding system for describing the specific items and services provided in healthcare.HCPCS dictates the billing codes in the claims that physicians, healthcare providers and suppliers, such as Myriad, submit to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”). The National Correct Coding Initiative (“NCCI”), a CMS program designed to prevent improper payment of procedures that should not be submitted together, provides further instruction with respect to correct billing practices. Among other things, the NCCI provides that billing documents must contain numerical code pairs, reflected in adjacent columns, identifying the services provided. As CMS has stated in its billing guidance documents, “[t]he underlying principle is that the second code defines a subset of the work of the first code. Reporting the codes separately is inappropriate. Separate reporting would trigger a separate payment and would constitute double billing.”

In September 2013, Myriad launched its proprietary 25-gene myRisk Hereditary Cancer test (“myRisk”), which includes testing for multiple genes associated with cancer, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, both of which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing–specifically, BRCA sequencing and BRCA duplication-deletion–are represented in HCPCS by codes 81211 and 81213. CMS has clearly stated that codes 81211 and 81213 are not correctly used together in claim submissions.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Myriad was submitting false or otherwise improper claims for payment under Medicare and Medicaid for the Company’s hereditary cancer testing; (ii) the foregoing conduct would foreseeably subject Myriad to heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; (iii) Myriad’s revenues from its hereditary cancer testing were in part the product of improper conduct and unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result, Myriad’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 12, 2018, post-market, Myriad disclosed that it had received a subpoena from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, in connection with “an investigation into possible false or otherwise improper claims submitted for payment under Medicare and Medicaid,” specifically relating to Myriad’s hereditary cancer testing. The subpoena covers a time period from January 1, 2014–less than four months after the September 2013 launch of Myriad’s myRisk test–through the date of the subpoena’s issuance.

On this news, Myriad’s share price fell $4.01, or 12.14%, to close at $29.01 on March 13, 2018.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 Ext. 9980

Copyright (C) 2018 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of Aceto Corporation – ACET

NEW YORK, April 20, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Aceto Corporation (“Aceto” or the “Company”)

ACET, -5.64%

   Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Aceto and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. 

[Click here to join a class action]

On April 18, 2018, post-market, Aceto disclosed that “the financial guidance issued on February 1, 2018, should no longer be relied upon,” and suspended “further financial guidance for at least the balance of the fiscal year.”  The Company also disclosed that it “anticipates recording non-cash intangible asset impairment charges, including goodwill, in the range of $230 million to $260 million on certain currently marketed and pipeline generic products as a result of continued intense competitive and pricing pressures.”  Aceto further disclosed the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer, who had joined the company two months earlier.

Following these disclosures, Aceto’s share price fell $4.74, or 64%, to close at $2.66 on April 19, 2018.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 9980

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-investigates-claims-on-behalf-of-investors-of-aceto-corporation—acet-300633990.html

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP

Copyright (C) 2018 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of Aceto…

NEW YORK, April 20, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP is
investigating claims on behalf of investors of Aceto Corporation (“Aceto” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: ACET).  
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Aceto and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or
other unlawful business practices. 

[Click here to
join a class action]

On April 18, 2018, post-market, Aceto disclosed that “the financial guidance issued on
February 1, 2018, should no longer be relied upon,” and suspended “further financial guidance for
at least the balance of the fiscal year.”  The Company also disclosed that it “anticipates recording non-cash intangible
asset impairment charges, including goodwill, in the range of $230 million to $260 million on certain currently marketed and pipeline generic products as a result of continued intense
competitive and pricing pressures.”  Aceto further disclosed the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer, who had joined
the company two months earlier.

Following these disclosures, Aceto’s share price fell $4.74, or 64%, to close at $2.66 on April 19, 2018.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago,
Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham
L. Pomerantz
, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby

Pomerantz LLP

rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

888-476-6529 ext. 9980

Cision View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-investigates-claims-on-behalf-of-investors-of-aceto-corporation—acet-300633990.html

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP

Go to Source

Marijuana sector firms get marketing pushback

TORONTO — Some Canadian marijuana sector companies are getting pushback against their marketing efforts from social media platforms and government officials as legalization of recreational pot looms and regulations are not yet final.

Lift & Co, which hosts industry events and offers cannabis education, has had its YouTube account suspended and Facebook ad account deactivated, with both companies citing a policy violation.

Lift CEO Matei Olaru said he believes its accounts were targeted in connection with the U.S. tech giants’ policies barring promotion of the sale of illegal, prescription or recreational drugs, even though medical marijuana is legal in Canada and recreational pot will soon follow suit.

The company’s content on both platforms largely involved cannabis education and promotion of upcoming industry trade shows, but believes it got lumped into the broader category of marijuana, which is illegal under U.S. federal law.

“I think we got bundled into the whole cannabis thing,” said Olaru. “That because we are promoting an event about cannabis and there is cannabis in our profile, we just got taken down.”

Meanwhile, Canadian licensed producer MedReleaf cancelled its Quebec launch of its recreational brand San Rafael ’71 scheduled for Friday after Quebec government officials expressed concern. The event involved live performances at a Montreal club on April 20 or 4-20, when cannabis culture is celebrated by the drug’s enthusiasts each year.

MedReleaf’s vice-president of strategy Darren Karasiuk said the producer heard the concerns of Quebec’s provincial liquor retailer SAQ, which is also tasked with cannabis distribution, and it respects proposed laws which bar the promotion of “lifestyle” cannabis consumption.

“We continue to act in full compliance with the current regulations and are working collaboratively with the SAQ and all our provincial partners and distributors to provide factual cannabis information in an open dialogue,” he said in an emailed statement.

Advertising medical cannabis is essentially prohibited in Canada, with some exceptions. As the country prepares to legalize marijuana for adult use later this year, the rules governing recreational pot are expected to be less stringent but, like tobacco, an ad blitz is not allowed.

The proposed federal rules dictate that a cannabis brand cannot be associated with “a way of life such as one that includes glamour, recreation, excitement, vitality, risk or daring.” In Quebec, proposed rules dictate that advertising cannot directly or indirectly associate “the use of cannabis or a cannabis accessory with a particular lifestyle.”

Go to Source