Shrinking FDI firms a concern for Vietnam

In the first eight months of the year Vietnam attracted foreign investment worth more than US$23.36 billion, a year-on-year increase of 45.1 per cent.

Shrinking FDI firms a concern for Vietnam, vietnam economy, business news, vn news, vietnamnet bridge, english news, Vietnam news, news Vietnam, vietnamnet news, vn news, Vietnam net news, Vietnam latest news, Vietnam breaking news

Though it was rightly hailed by all, the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) in a recent report listed several shortcomings, one of which was the rapid increase in the number of projects with very little capital.

In fact, the number of projects with capital of below $1 million accounted for 65 per cent of all projects during this period.

The average size was $3.8 million, rather modest according to experts.

Experts have been warning for a long time that foreign-owned projects are getting smaller, but the issue has not been addressed so far.

For instance, last year the Mekong Delta province of An Giang attracted only one foreign project and it was worth all of $20,000.

Similar sized projects have been seen even in major cities like Hanoi, Da Nang and HCM City.

HCM City last year licensed 836 FDI projects whose capital added over $1 billion, meaning each was worth nearly $1.2 million.

In Da Nang too, most FDI projects last year averaged around $1 million worth of capital.

Analysts said though the Government makes great efforts to attract investors, the number of those from countries like the US, Germany and France remains modest, with many big players still hesitant to invest in Vietnam.

This is because Vietnamhas yet to really meet three requirements: publicity for and transparency in fighting against corruption; preventing violations of intellectual property rights and the continuing problem of red tape though Vietnamhas made great progress in administrative reform.

Some experts blame the situation on authorised agencies’ poor ability to assess FDI projects before granting investment licences.

One of the consequences is that many FDI projects have limited resources and use outdated technology and equipment that cause pollution.

Analysts said there are differences between the FDI regimes of Vietnam and other countries, explaining that Vietnam is very careful in granting licences but is lax in overseeing their business activities.

On the other hand, others make it easy for foreign investors to get licences but carefully monitor their activities subsequently.

After reviewing FDI inflows in the last few years, MPI experts realised the necessity to fix a minimum capital requirement for foreign investors wanting to come to the country.

Small projects, including foreign-invested ones, often face major challenges in their early days caused by their very size. They focus on assembling instead of production, their use of local content is low, their exports are mainly based on outsourcing, they are labour-intensive – as in the so-called, much derided sweat shops — and create little value addition.

They are of little help to the Vietnamese economic or business set-up because they unable to transfer technology to local companies, thus failing the Government’s policy of attracting FDI to help improve domestic technological capacity. 

The ratio of FDI companies in the manufacturing and processing sectors has plummeted in recent years to 20-30 per cent from 70-80 per cent earlier.

A majority of them have capital ranging from a few dozen thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars and use simple technologies.

Analysts stressed the need to attract FDI selectively to improve quality and allow only domestic companies in areas where they can do well.

Bad debt market gets fillip from new policy

On September 14 the National Commercial Joint Stock Bank (NCB) auctioned off a 2,100sq.m piece of land in Binh Duong Province’s Thuan An Town with a reserve price of VNĐ11.6 billion ($515,000). The land had been pledged as collateral for a loan.

Agribank plans to put up all the assets and land use rights mortgaged for the V-Ikon project for auction at a starting price of VNĐ319.5 billion on September 19. The V-Ikon project was planned as a grade A office building with 26 floors in HCM City’s Binh Thanh District and its construction halted several years ago after the developer ran out of funds.

Sacombank has said it is checking many assets put up as collateral and expects to auction them soon to recover debts.

Market observers said nearly one month after Resolution 42 came into effect, several banks have made active plans to recover their bad debts.

Some bankers revealed that their banks are wrapping up legal formalities to sue some companies who borrowed from them but failed to repay.

The Vietnam Asset Management Company (VAMC) was the pioneer, confiscating an asset mortgaged for non-repayment of a loan by the Sai Gon One Tower Joint Stock Company. The asset in question is the high-rise Sai Gon M&C building at 34 Ton Duc Thang, HCM City. 

It had earlier signed an agreement with several lenders for purchase of their debts to a group of customers, including Sai Gon One Tower Joint Stock Company (formerly Saigon M&C Real Estate Joint Stock Company), Lien Phat Investment Joint Stock Company, Minh Quan Investment and Construction Joint Stock Company, and New Superdeck M&C Joint Stock Company.

The total outstanding debts, including interest, came to more than VNĐ7 trillion ($307 million).

The VAMC repeatedly demanded that the borrowers repay, but they neither did so nor came up with feasible repayment plans.

It then demanded that Sai Gon One Tower Joint Stock Company hand over the building to discharge its debt, but again in vain. It was then that it took precipitate action, seizing the building.

But the process took place smoothly and in accordance with the law.

Analysts said several legal provisions in Resolution No 42 are designed to quickly and definitely settle bad debts, thus paving the way for the VAMC and lenders to recover their money. 

One of the provisions in the resolution to have a significant bearing on banks’ debt recovery is Article 10, which states that debtors’collaterals to banks is not limited to residential construction projects, as there is no clear legal restriction on other types of real estate, such as hotels, resorts, even factories and power plants, to be used in place of pledged assets.

As such, this allows for more flexible use of collateral, preventing debtors from defaulting for lack of valuable assets.

Article 7 acknowledges credit institutions’ right to appropriate pledged assets from debtors unless an asset in question is held by courts as evidence of a criminal offence by a debtor.

This is an improvement on the 2015 Civil Code, which does not allow appropriation of pledged assets.

Article 8 has more transparent and simpler legal procedures for dealing with non-performing loans.

Besides, Resolution 42 now allows financial institutions capable of purchasing and selling bad debts to do so, instead of restricting these activities to Government entities.

Bad debts can be sold at below book value, meaning they are no longer toxic assets that have lost nearly all their value for banks.

Overall, this can lead to bad debts being traded more frequently on the mergers and acquisitions market (M&A) in at least the next five years.

Analysts said the new regulations have helped create a market for bad debts in which mortgaged properties can be traded.

A top Sacombank executive said his bank hopes to resolve around VNĐ20 trillion ($881.06 million) worth of bad debts, or a fifth of the total amount, by year end, thanks to the new resolution.

Right after the resolution took effect, Techcombank bought back the bad debts it had sold to the VAMC to settle them on its own. A spokesperson said with the new regulations the bank would be able to speed up bad debt settlement.  

Analysts said the resolution would have a big impact on banks that have bad debts in their balance sheet or with the VAMC. 

VNS

Go to Source

Law firm Ross Harper at centre of police investigation

Police have launched an investigation into financial discrepancies linked to the collapse of one of Scotland’s leading law firms.

Ross Harper and Co. dominated the legal landscape for five decades but shut down in 2012 amid concerns over financial irregularities and the misuse of clients’ funds.

It later emerged that public money claimed in Legal Aid fees was not paid to suppliers and to experts who had been hired by the Glasgow-based firm. The money was instead used to prop up the firm’s bank balance.

An investigation by the Law Society of Scotland resulted in four of the firm’s partners being struck off, and two more being censured.

Police have now confirmed they have received a dossier related to the firm, and an investigation focused on its financial dealings is under way.

A spokesman said: “Information has been passed to Police Scotland regarding concerns about the firm Ross Harper.

“Police inquiries are at an early stage to establish if any criminality has taken place.”

Among the specialists claiming to have been left without payment is forensic psychologist Ian Stephen, who is said to be owed £5,000 in fees.

The former senior medic at the State Hospital at Carstairs told the Sunday Mail: “I felt badly let down by Ross Harper. You should be able to put your faith in a lawyer.

“I was always writing to them to ask why I was not being paid. I was shocked they were so ¬blatant about it.”

Leading bacteriologist Professor Hugh Pennington, who chaired the Pennington Inquiry into the 1996 E.Coli outbreak, is understood to be owed £4,000.

The police probe comes after two of the firm’s leading solicitors – managing partner Alan Miller and cashroom manager Jim Price – were both found guilty of professional misconduct and struck off the roll of solicitors last month.

The Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had heard of an ongoing course of dishonest conduct over a significant period of time, which involved overcharging clients and Scottish Legal Aid Board funds which should have been passed to expert witnesses being used instead to prop up the firm’s cash flow.

According to the SSDT findings, book entries were made to conceal what was happening and the pair jointly signed accounting certificates that did not reflect the firm’s true financial position.

Lawyers Cameron Fyfe – one of the country’s highest profile lawyers with a string of headline cases – and Alan Susskind, both partners at the firm, were struck off in May.

Both were found guilty of professional misconduct related to the use of Legal Aid funds being used to prop up the firm’s own bank account.

Mr Fyfe, who was declared bankrupt in 2013 following the firm’s collapse, appealed the decision to the Court of Session, but was refused.

Two other partners in the firm, Paul McHolland and Joseph Mullen, were censured by the SSDT but are still able to practise.

Lorna Jack, chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland, said: “Concerns were raised about the firm’s accounting record following one of our routine financial compliance inspections.

“This led to us going to the Court of Session to request the appointment of a judicial factor to the firm in April 2012 and, following investigation, we prosecuted all six former partners before the independent Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal.”

“It’s essential that people can continue to place their trust in the legal profession.”

Go to Source

11 Insurance firms pressured by N40bn rising claims

Mon Sep 18th, 2017
Lagos

By Rosemary Onuoha

WITH the recent flooding in some parts of the country, coupled with increased awareness by insurance consumers in Nigeria, insurance claims have grown by over N5.9 billion in the first half of 2017, H1’17.

Reported claims in the financial statements of 22 major leading insurance companies for the period ended 30th June 2017 shows claims expenses to be at over N40 billion against N34.1 billion recorded in the corresponding period of 2016.

Though claims payment points to improved customer service and responsible underwriting, there are indications that the insurers are not earning enough to match the growing claims liabilities.

The rising claims was coming against sluggish growth in premium income as Gross Premium written recorded marginal increase at N118.55billion against N109 billion recorded in 2016.

This means that while claims expenses rose by a significant 17.3 percent, premium income was growing at less momentum of 8.76 percent.

However in reaction to the rising rate of claims which insurers have had to settle thus far, a lot of operators are gearing up to increase premium rates especially for fire and special perils which cover risks such as flood, for flood prone territories, during renewals.

Financial Vanguard findings show that underwriters could jerk up premium rates for flood insurance by up to 50 per cent, in response to increased flooding incidences across the country.

How the insurers are affected

A breakdown of companies’ financials in H1’17 show that while Linkage Assurance Plc’s gross premium written during the period grew marginally by 5.2 percent to N2.7 billion (from N2.6 billion) claims expenses rose massively by a whopping 232 percent to N559.8 million (from N168.2 million).

For Niger Insurance though gross premium grew massively by 136 percent to N3.9 billion (from N1.2 billion), a rise in claims expenses at 229 percent still outpaced it.

Consolidated Hallmark Insurance recorded N3.3 billion as gross premium written, a meager 3.0 percent growth from N3.4 billion, claims expenses towered up by 151 percent to N1.9 billion from N768.1 million.

Regency Assurance with gross premium written of N3.1billion, up 33 percent from N2.4 billion, but it carried claims expenses upshot of 90 percent to N695.4 million.

Nem Insurance with a huge portfolio of gross premium written at N8.1billion up by 37 percent from N5.9billion carried small sized claims expenses of N365.6million which, however, was growing faster at 77 percent.

Prestige Assurance with gross premium written of N2.2billion, a 50 percent growth against N1.5billion in 2016 recorded a 75 percent growth in claims expenses at N176.0 million against N100.5 million in 2016.

Mutual Benefits Assurance also with a huge portfolio of gross premium written at N7.6billion, up 20 percent from N6.4billion, but with equally huge claims expenses at N2.4billion growing far faster at 63 percent from N1.5billion.

Staco Insurance with gross premium written of N3.5billion, up just 14 percent from N3.0 billion, while claims expenses was massive at N1.4 billion growing hugely by 54 percent from N901.5 million.

Very worrisome was the shape of African Alliance Insurance whose gross premium written nose-dived massively by 67 percent at N3.2billion (from N9.9billion) while claims expenses rose significantly by 21 percent to N4.1billion from N3.4billion.

Another adverse report was the case of Cornerstone Insurance where gross premium written declined by five percent at N5.6 billion (from N5.9 billion) but claims expenses rose significantly by 31 percent to a massive N2.3 billion (from N1.7 billion).

Aiico Insurance, also in similar shape, while maintaining its massive gross premium written at N14.8billion but it declined four percent from N15.6 billion, just as its equally massive claims expenses at N8.9billion, represented a significant 26 percent rise from N7.04 billion.

Insurers with better claims to income ratio

However, Sovereign Trust appears to be in different shape recording a huge 63 percent growth in gross premium written at N6.1billion (from N3.744 billion) while claims expenses at N756.4 million declined massively by 30 percent from N580.5 million.

Other companies that presented different pictures from the adverse trend include Equity Assurance with gross premium written of N1.97 billion, a decline of 31 per cent from N2.9 billion while claims expenses was N459.7million, showing a 42 percent decline from N793.3million.

For Wapic Insurance gross premium written was N5.9billion, up 31 percent from N4.9billion while claims expenses at N1.6billion, rose 20 percent from N1.3billion. Law Union and Rock gross premium written was N2.8billion, up 16 percent from N2.371 billion while claims expenses was N332.8 million, a decline of 26 percent from N449.7 million.

Guinea Insurance gross premium written was N604 million, up 14 percent from N528.6 million while claims expenses was N40.9 million, a 26 percent decline from N55.7 million.

Standard Alliance gross premium written was N3.1billion, up 17 percent from N2.7billion, while claims expenses was N888.5 million, a decline of 16 percent from N1.1billion.

Great Nigeria Insurance gross premium written stood at N2.01billion, up massively by 93 percent from N1.04billion, while claims expenses was N487.3million, down 13 percent from N564.9million.

Custodian & Allied Insurance maintained its huge portfolio of gross premium written at N16.3 billion, while claims expenses, though equally huge, showed a 12 percent decline to N5.1billion from N5.8billion.

UnityKapital Assurance had gross premium written of N1.7 billion, up by 28 percent from N1.3billion while claims expenses was N198.7 million, a 12 percent drop from N226.9 million.

Lasaco Assurance had gross premium written of N4.8billion, up 18 percent from N4.01billion, while claims expenses was N1.3billion, a 1.5 percent drop from N1.3billion.

Continental Reinsurance catapulted its gross premium written by 15 percent to a massive figure of N15.2 billion from N11.9 billion , while claims expenses was down by six percent to N5.1billion from N5.4billion.

Operators’ reaction

Against the backdrop of the growing adverse ratio of claims to premium many insurers are looking at increasing premium especially on special risks while deploying more energy towards growing premium income.

Managing Director of Law Union and Rock, Mr. Jide Orimolade said, “We are conversant with the recent floods in some parts of the country. So in terms of flood and fire insurance, the rate we can give to somebody at Magodo (Lagos suburb) for fire and special perils is not the same rate for someone in Victoria Island, Lagos. For flood risk, we are very dynamic in terms of the rate we offer.”

Orimolade said that his company is targeting a 50 per cent increase in premium by year end.

Chairman of Nigerian Insurers Association, Mr. Eddie Efekoha said that with the level of claims paid out to insured victims of the flood, especially in the Lekki area, premium rate for that area will definitely edge higher during renewals.

“Having paid so much as claims for Lekki flood, it will not make business sense to charge the same rate during renewals,” he said.

Efekoha said that flood insurance being an extension of fire cover, most insurance companies before now offer the cover for free, especially in areas not prone to flood.

Meanwhile despite the huge claims paid so far, some operators are still optimistic that the rest of the year will be better.

Orimolade said, “Our target is to attain 50 percent growth in premium income this year. Though we are presently at 17 percent compared to last year, we are putting lots of strategies in place to be able to attain the 50 percent growth. We have told the stakeholders that we are looking at 50 percent, so for us it is a challenge. However, we set a target for ourselves and it is not the board that set it for us. We believe that we will be able to meet up with the target at the end of the year.

Managing Director of FBN Insurance, Mr. Val Ojumah said, “From our perspective, we have had an excellent result from our first half result. We expect better performance for the second half of the year. The economy is not good but it is getting better. Overall, we expect that by end of 2017, there will be growth in gross premium income. I do not think that there will be a depression in that area.”

The optimism is strong on the heels of the announcement that the country is out of recession as the economic recession adversely affected the insurance sector, with insurers grappling with lack of foreign exchange to reinsure businesses abroad and the lack of funds by businesses to buy insurance cover for their assets.

Also due to scarcity of funds, some corporate organisations preferred short term cover during renewal periods.

According to the Managing Director, Risk Analyst Insurance Brokers, Mrs. Funmi Babington-Ashaye, lack of liquidity during the period discouraged people from taking insurance covers . Other negative developments which impacted on the industry included the decline in government revenue as a result of continued fall in oil price, a development which effectively returned the governments to its former position as the highest debtor to the insurance industry.





Reactions

source:
Vanguard

Go to Source

Firms face littering penalties

FOUR major companies have been taken to task for littering, says Minister for Environment and Local Government Parveen Kumar.

While speaking in Lautoka over the weekend, he said these companies would face the full brunt of the law for dumping rubbish illegally.

“Most of the times we blame children or individuals for littering, but it is the bigger corporate bodies that are also committing this crime against our environment,” he said.

“There are four major companies who have been taken to task and we have given their files to DPP (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) and definitely they will be prosecuted.

For more on this story, pick up a copy of today’s edition of The Fiji Times or subscribe to our E-edition.


Go to Source

Does the Pentagon Buy Arms for Syrian Militants From Czech Gun Firms?

Speaking to Sputnik, the head of a Czech arms-selling association gave his thoughts on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).

According to the survey, the Pentagon is working with various contractors and sub-contractors in Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet states to implement an arms and ammunition supply program that will cost $2.2 billion. Among other countries, the report mentioned the Czech Republic.

“As far as I know, these accusations pertain to the ruling circles of the United States rather than the Czech arms manufacturers. With all due respect to the money-does-not-stink principle, I do not think that Czech firms are engaged in such perversions as the supply of weapons to terrorists,” Jan Skalicky told Sputnik.

He said that he “cannot imagine a situation when a Czech firm would ask for permission from the Ministry of Industry and Trade, which, according to the law of 38/1994, is necessary for all trading operations, and would indicate terrorists as an end user.”

“I cannot imagine that such a request would then be considered by the ministry. Such requests are handled, for example, by intelligence and security services,” he said.

When asked about should Czech authorities actively intervene in the arms trade-related issues if there are suspicions that these weapons will subsequently be re-exported to countries where armed conflicts are taking place, Skalicky said that “they certainly should.”

“However, it is absolutely impossible for such trade operations to be carried out under the guise of state armed forces or the government,” he pointed out.

Earlier, Scott Bennett, former US Army psychological operations officer and State Department counterterrorism contractor, told Sputnik that the reported US supplies of Soviet-era munitions to Syrian rebels not only “openly violates” legal norms against financing terrorism, but also risks igniting a greater conflict across the Middle East.

According to the investigation by the  OCCRP and the BIRN, the Pentagon is buying the munitions through two channels: the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Picatinny Arsenal, a US Army weapons facility in New Jersey.

The supplies are transported by sea and air from Europe to Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait and then distributed to US allied rebel forces in northern and southern Syria.

This equipment reportedly includes firearms, mortars, AK-47 rifles, heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and various types of ammunition.

In its arms supplies for Syrian militants, the US is using “misleading documentation,” undermining the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, the report said. However, the Pentagon denied the claims, saying that all of its papers are correct.

Go to Source

Cops launch cash probe into bust law firm Ross Harper and Co after partners struck off

A police investigation has been launched into the collapse of one of ­Scotland’s top law firms.

Ross Harper and Co, who had offices across Scotland, were shut down in 2012 after more than 50 years in practise.

It emerged that public cash claimed in Legal Aid fees was not paid to ­suppliers and experts hired by the Glasgow firm.

A lengthy probe by the Law Society of Scotland led to four partners being struck off and two more being censured.

We can reveal a dossier has now been passed to police, who have launched a criminal investigation.

The Mail understands the initial focus is on former ­senior partner Alan Miller, 38, who was struck from the roll of solicitors last month.

Harper & Co face scrutiny over fees

One expert witness hired by the firm welcomed the probe. Forensic psychologist Ian ­Stephen, who’s owed £5000 in fees, said: “I think it’s appropriate that police investigate.

“If anyone commits a crime, be it fraud or anything else, then you would expect police would make inquiries into it.

“If this happened in any other profession, the appropriate ­professional body would make inquiries and, if there was a criminal element to it, you would expect police to become involved.

Solicitor Paul McHolland was censured

“I don’t not see how the ­situation should be any different for solicitors.”

Stephen, a former senior medic at the State Hospital at Carstairs, said: “I felt badly let down by Ross Harper. You should be able to put your faith in a lawyer.

“I was always writing to them to ask why I was not being paid. I was shocked they were so ­blatant about it.”

Professor Hugh Pennington saw £4000 in fees go unpaid.

The bacteriolgoist said: “I was shocked to ­discover Ross Harper were ­withholding payments from me and others. There has been a betrayal of trust.”

Miller and Jim Price, also a senior partner, were struck off last month by the ­Scottish ­Solicitors ­Disciplinary Tribunal for professional misconduct.

Price was employed as general manager of Nottingham Forest in 2013 but left the football club within a year.

Two further partners, Paul McHolland and Joseph Mullen, were censured by the SSDT but are still able to practise.

Cameron Fyfe and Alan ­Susskind – also partners at the firm – were struck off in May.

Ian Stephen is owed £5000 in fees

Professor Hugh Pennington saw £4000 in fees go unpaid

The SSDT found Legal Aid cash lay in “a drawer”, the firm’s bank account, for up to two years.

The cash was used to help them ­balance their books after the 2008 financial crash.

Accounts also showed a cheque was cancelled and ­reissued three times before it reached its destination.

On at least two occasions, the same tactic was used to hold up payments of £300 to Pennington.

We told last month how legal watchdogs are facing more than £100,000 worth of claims from victims of the firm.

Any compensation would be paid from a Law Society client protection contingency fund.

Ross Harper had 12 offices in Scotland and were the country’s biggest earning Legal Aid firm, with 2006-07 earnings of £1.7million. They were founded in 1961 by ex-law professor Ross Harper.

Alan Susskind was struck off

Cameron Fyfe was also struck off

A police spokeswoman said: “Inquiries are at an early stage.”

A Law Society of Scotland spokesman said: “Concerns were raised about the firm’s ­accounting record following one of our ­routine ­compliance inspections.

“This led to us going to the Court of Session to request the appointment of a judicial factor to the firm in April 2012 and, ­following investigation, we prosecuted all six former partners before the independent SSDT.

“We have a legal duty to report suspicious activity to the ­relevant authorities but cannot comment on whether reports have been made on specific cases.”

Former senior partner Jim Price

Read More

Top news stories today

Go to Source

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

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 16, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Zillow Group, Inc. (“Zillow” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: Z) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Zillow securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Zillow securities between February 12, 2016, and August 8, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until October 23, 2017, 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]

Zillow Group, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The Company provides information about homes, real estate listings, and mortgages through their website and mobile applications. Zillow serves homeowners, buyers, sellers, renters, and real estate professionals throughout the United States.

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) the Company’s co-marketing program did not comply with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Zillow’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 8, 2017, the Company filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission, announcing the Company’s financial and operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

The quarterly report stated that, in April 2017, Zillow received a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB. On August 8, 2017, Zillow advised investors that the CFPB has concluded its investigation and “has invited us to discuss a possible settlement and indicated that it intends to pursue further action if those discussions do not result in a settlement.”

Following this news, Zillow’s share price fell $7.43, or 15.5%, over the following two trading days to close at $40.50 on August 10, 2017.

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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 475573

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 16, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Zillow Group, Inc. (“Zillow” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: Z) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Zillow securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Zillow securities between February 12, 2016, and August 8, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until October 23, 2017, 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]

Zillow Group, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The Company provides information about homes, real estate listings, and mortgages through their website and mobile applications. Zillow serves homeowners, buyers, sellers, renters, and real estate professionals throughout the United States.

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) the Company’s co-marketing program did not comply with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Zillow’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 8, 2017, the Company filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission, announcing the Company’s financial and operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

The quarterly report stated that, in April 2017, Zillow received a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB. On August 8, 2017, Zillow advised investors that the CFPB has concluded its investigation and “has invited us to discuss a possible settlement and indicated that it intends to pursue further action if those discussions do not result in a settlement.”

Following this news, Zillow’s share price fell $7.43, or 15.5%, over the following two trading days to close at $40.50 on August 10, 2017.

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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 475573

Source URL: https://marketersmedia.com/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-zillow-group-inc-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline-z/239992

Source: AccessWire

Release ID: 239992

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – HIIQ

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 16, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. (“Health Insurance Innovations” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: HIIQ) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-06962, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Health Insurance Innovations securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Health Insurance Innovations securities between August 2, 2017, and September 11, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until November 10, 2017, 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]

Health Insurance Innovations operates as a developer, distributor, and administrator of cloud-based individual health and family insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States. The Company offers, inter alia, short-term medical plans, hospital indemnity plans, and supplemental insurance products. It designs and structures individual health and family insurance plans, and supplemental products on behalf of insurance carriers and discount benefit providers and market them to individuals through a network of distributors.

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) Health Insurance Innovations’ application for a key insurance license in its home state of Florida was rejected due to the state’s Office of Insurance Regulation’s (“OIR”) discovery of undisclosed legal actions against Health Insurance Innovations insiders; (ii) Health Insurance Innovations warned the OIR of the anticipated “domino effect” that the rejection was likely to cause, by which the Company would subsequently lose licenses in additional states; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Health Insurance Innovations’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 11, 2017, the website SeekingAlpha.com published an article reporting on the OIR’s June 2017 rejection of Health Insurance Innovations’ application for a “key insurance license in [its] home state of Florida as [the OIR] uncovers undisclosed legal actions against HIIQ insiders” and that “HIIQ privately warns of disastrous ‘domino effect’ spreading to other states, causing additional loss of licenses. HIIQ makes no disclosure to investors.”

On this news, Health Insurance Innovations’ share price fell $6.55, or 21.91%, to close at $23.35 on September 11, 2017.

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.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 475576

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 16, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. (“Health Insurance Innovations” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: HIIQ) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-06962, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Health Insurance Innovations securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Health Insurance Innovations securities between August 2, 2017, and September 11, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until November 10, 2017, 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]

Health Insurance Innovations operates as a developer, distributor, and administrator of cloud-based individual health and family insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States. The Company offers, inter alia, short-term medical plans, hospital indemnity plans, and supplemental insurance products. It designs and structures individual health and family insurance plans, and supplemental products on behalf of insurance carriers and discount benefit providers and market them to individuals through a network of distributors.

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) Health Insurance Innovations’ application for a key insurance license in its home state of Florida was rejected due to the state’s Office of Insurance Regulation’s (“OIR”) discovery of undisclosed legal actions against Health Insurance Innovations insiders; (ii) Health Insurance Innovations warned the OIR of the anticipated “domino effect” that the rejection was likely to cause, by which the Company would subsequently lose licenses in additional states; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Health Insurance Innovations’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 11, 2017, the website SeekingAlpha.com published an article reporting on the OIR’s June 2017 rejection of Health Insurance Innovations’ application for a “key insurance license in [its] home state of Florida as [the OIR] uncovers undisclosed legal actions against HIIQ insiders” and that “HIIQ privately warns of disastrous ‘domino effect’ spreading to other states, causing additional loss of licenses. HIIQ makes no disclosure to investors.”

On this news, Health Insurance Innovations’ share price fell $6.55, or 21.91%, to close at $23.35 on September 11, 2017.

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.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 475576

Source URL: https://marketersmedia.com/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-health-insurance-innovations-inc-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline-hiiq/239984

Source: AccessWire

Release ID: 239984

Go to Source

Zillow Inc : Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Zillow Group, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – Z

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 16, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Zillow Group, Inc. (“Zillow” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: Z) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Zillow securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Zillow securities between February 12, 2016, and August 8, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until October 23, 2017, 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 [email protected] 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]

Zillow Group, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The Company provides information about homes, real estate listings, and mortgages through their website and mobile applications. Zillow serves homeowners, buyers, sellers, renters, and real estate professionals throughout the United States.

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) the Company’s co-marketing program did not comply with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Zillow’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 8, 2017, the Company filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission, announcing the Company’s financial and operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

The quarterly report stated that, in April 2017, Zillow received a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB. On August 8, 2017, Zillow advised investors that the CFPB has concluded its investigation and “has invited us to discuss a possible settlement and indicated that it intends to pursue further action if those discussions do not result in a settlement.”

Following this news, Zillow’s share price fell $7.43, or 15.5%, over the following two trading days to close at $40.50 on August 10, 2017.

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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

Health Insurance Innovations Inc : Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – HIIQ

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 16, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. (“Health Insurance Innovations” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: HIIQ) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-06962, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Health Insurance Innovations securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Health Insurance Innovations securities between August 2, 2017, and September 11, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until November 10, 2017, 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 [email protected] 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]

Health Insurance Innovations operates as a developer, distributor, and administrator of cloud-based individual health and family insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States. The Company offers, inter alia, short-term medical plans, hospital indemnity plans, and supplemental insurance products. It designs and structures individual health and family insurance plans, and supplemental products on behalf of insurance carriers and discount benefit providers and market them to individuals through a network of distributors.

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) Health Insurance Innovations’ application for a key insurance license in its home state of Florida was rejected due to the state’s Office of Insurance Regulation’s (“OIR”) discovery of undisclosed legal actions against Health Insurance Innovations insiders; (ii) Health Insurance Innovations warned the OIR of the anticipated “domino effect” that the rejection was likely to cause, by which the Company would subsequently lose licenses in additional states; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Health Insurance Innovations’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 11, 2017, the website SeekingAlpha.com published an article reporting on the OIR?s June 2017 rejection of Health Insurance Innovations’ application for a “key insurance license in [its] home state of Florida as [the OIR] uncovers undisclosed legal actions against HIIQ insiders” and that “HIIQ privately warns of disastrous ‘domino effect’ spreading to other states, causing additional loss of licenses. HIIQ makes no disclosure to investors.”

On this news, Health Insurance Innovations’ share price fell $6.55, or 21.91%, to close at $23.35 on September 11, 2017.

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.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source