Category: Blog

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Acacia Communications, Inc. and Certain Officers – ACIA

Brian Sanchez

NEW YORK, Aug. 14, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Acacia Communications, Inc. (“Acacia” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:ACIA) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 17-cv-11504, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Acacia securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Acacia securities between August 11, 2016, and July 13, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until October 13, 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]

Acacia designs, develops, manufactures, and markets communication equipment. The Company offers high-speed coherent optical interconnect products for cloud infrastructure operators and content and communication service providers. Acacia Communications serves customers worldwide.

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 manufacturing and quality control processes were deficient; (ii) the foregoing deficiencies were likely to disrupt the Company’s manufacturing, thereby impacting the Company’s revenues; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Acacia’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.   

On May 31, 2017, Acacia issued a press release and filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission, advising investors that “the Company has identified a quality issue” affecting “a portion” of several thousand modules manufactured by one of Acacia’s three contract manufacturers, citing as the “root cause of this quality issue . . . a circuit board cleaning process that has since been eliminated.”

On July 14, 2017, Acacia issued a press release announcing the Company’s preliminary financial and operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.  The Company reported profit and revenue that missed estimates, and revised its current-quarter guidance downward.  Acacia stated that the Company’s “second-quarter results were adversely affected by the quality issue identified at one of our three contract manufacturers that we announced on May 31.” 

On this news, Acacia’s share price fell $2.62, or 6.30%, to close at $39.00 per share on July 14, 2017.

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


Go to Source

Law firm Muckle uses artificial intelligence during multimillion-pound case

Brian Sanchez

Newcastle law firm Muckle LLP has become one of the first in the region to use artificial intelligence (AI) technology to help speed up the disclosure process on a multimillion-pound dispute claim.

The firm’s dispute resolution team is using predictive coding software, which is also known as technology aided review (TAR), to analyse hundreds of thousands of disclosure documents to speed up the time it takes to review a case.

Muckle has used the software on a case that involved 1m disclosure documents. After carrying out a standard keyword search this was reduced to 660,000.

The firm then used the AI programme to further reduce the number of documents by another 90% to 35,000.

Partner and head of Muckle’s dispute resolution team, Susan Howe, said: “Using this type of technology is relatively new and is now being recognised by the court. Firms in London are investing very heavily in artificial intelligence systems but, regionally, it’s not something that is widely used yet.

“The dispute resolution team here at Muckle increasingly work on large claim cases where disclosure documents can be in the hundreds of thousands so having access to groundbreaking software such as TAR is game-changing.

“A process which would traditionally involve a team of trainees or paralegals turning the pages in a room for a year is now significantly condensed thanks to this cutting-edge computer programme.”

Muckle has brought in advanced discovery firm Millnet, to provide the AI software. Predictive coding is the use of keyword search, filtering and sampling to automate portions of an e-discovery document review.

To make sure the software works Muckle’s lawyers initially had to teach the programme what was important through inputting keywords and testing the algorithm. The algorithm then learns from the lawyers’ decision-making to identify similar documents and rank them by relevance.

Go to Source

Pontones & Fernández Joins the Environmental Law Network

Brian Sanchez

Bogotá law firm Pontones & Fernández recently joined the Environmental Law Network (ELN).

Cleveland, Ohio (PRWEB) August 14, 2017

Bogotá law firm Pontones & Fernández recently joined the Environmental Law Network (ELN).    Pontones & Fernández is an environmental law and consulting firm that focuses on providing legal and technical support to companies regarding their products, operations and facilities through strategies that strengthen the profitability of businesses. The firm’s areas of practice include environmental due diligence, regulatory approvals, environmental consulting, litigation, lobbying, technical consultancy, support in environmental and sustainable projects, consultancy on corporate social responsibility, and solid waste management. Pontones & Fernández also has an office in Mexico City, Mexico. For more information, visit http://pontonesyfernandez.com/en.

About ELN

The Environmental Law Network (ELN) is the first environmental law firm network that makes local representation available nationwide. Through ELN, more than 250 environmental attorneys share ideas, information, experiences, and contacts to increase the value of legal representation for their respective clients. ELN also has foreign affiliates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, Mexico, the United Kingdom and Spain. Leaders in each of the member firms average more than 20 years of experience in the field. For more information, contact Greg DeGulis, Chair of the Environmental Law Network at gdegulis(at)mdllp.net or by calling 216-367-1403.

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/08/prweb14595543.htm

Go to Source

Timeshare companies declare war on cancellation firms

Brian Sanchez

Raleigh-Durham area resident Alicia Alston has a tale of woe about a recent timeshare contract she and her family members signed May 20 — and want out of.

They chased an offer of free tickets to an aquarium when vacationing in Myrtle Beach recently. They wound up at a sales center for Wyndham Vacation Ownership timeshare properties. Alston, 32, is desperate to cancel. But she’s also worried about people offering to help her cancel it — some of whom want additional money up front. And she is not alone.

Several timeshare companies have declared war on attorneys and businesses that advertise timeshare cancellation services.

Over the past month, four timeshare companies have filed multiple lawsuits against several timeshare cancellation firms, including three suits against the Tennessee firm of Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips, the Castle Law Group.

Go to Source

RIRS Mulls Audit Of Firms’ Tax Profile

Brian Sanchez

The Rivers State Internal Revenue Service Board (RIRS), has hinted of plans to audit tax payment profile of companies operating in the state.
Chairman of the agency, Chief Adoage Norte gave the hint in a phone-in media chat organised by Silverbird Communications at the weekend in Port Harcourt.
He said since 2004, the board has not carried out any comprehensive audit of tax profile of companies as the government was losing so much revenue to tax evasion.
Norte while disclosing that there have been glaring improvements in the state’s monthly revenue from N6billion to N7billion on the average, observed that, “we have to clear the backlog of untreated files as far back as 2004.”
He, therefore, warned companies which have not remitted their taxes over the years to comply or face the full wrath of the law.
The RIRB chairman accused many companies of deducting their workers’ taxes without remitting same into the state government account, explaining that most times, this leads to compromise and evasion of tax payment.
Once the audit is carried out, he stated, each company will know how much they are to pay in accordance with the new tax policy of the Chief Nyesom Wike administration.
Norte while applauding the new tax harmonisation policy of the Wike administration, also warned companies not to pay any money to individuals or agents but rather make every payment straight into the government account to avoid theft and revenue loss.
“We have reasonably reduced touting, and so, every member of the public should resist the temptation to pay to any agent; and if you are harassed, please call the security agents,” he warned.
Consequently, he revealed that the board has introduced a “self service portal” on the web for easy transaction.
The ‘self service’, which is done online, Norte explained, helps individuals and companies to ascertain their tax status and profile without dealing directly with anybody.

Previous article‘Help Develop Children’s Interest In Sciences’ …As STAN 60th Confab Opens In PH , Today
Next articleHate Speech: It’s Time To Restructure Nigeria – OPC

Go to Source

2 firms asked to wind …

Brian Sanchez

The National Company Law Tribunal has created history under the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code it last week ordered winding up of two companies – VNR Infrastructures and Bhupen Electronic – after the borrowers and lenders failed to come up with a plan to revive operations. These companies, though small, set a precedent that the new law is living up to its promise of delivering justice in a time-bound manner.

The Hyderabad bench of the tribunal orally pronounced a liquidation order for VNR while a judgement on liquidation of Bhupen Electronic was passed by Mumbai bench. ET considers antecedents in both cases.

VNR Infrastructures

Promoted by Andhra MLC Vakati Narayan Reddy, the company approached the NCLT in February for initiating corporate insolvency. Its petition showed net worth completely eroded and a loss of Rs 125 crore. The State Bank of India and others had a joint exposure of Rs 1,102 crore in the company as loans and guarantees.

An inde pendent valuation report valued VNR at Rs 80 crore. The company pro posed a resolu tion plan in volving Rs 850 crore, wherein 50% of the loan would be con verted into eq uity and the bal ance into debt payable over 15 years.

A second resolution plan proposed cash payment of Rs 300 crore over a single year. Senior bank officials said the lenders rejected both plans on grounds that VNR did not have the necessary cash flow to support payments.

“Also, when a company has a loan of over Rs 1,000 crore and is valued at Rs 80 crore, why would it want to make a one-time cash settlement of Rs 300 crore, a huge markup over the value of assets?” said a banker.

A person with direct knowledge of the development said, “Lenders conveyed to the company that they would accept a one-time settlement of Rs 300 crore provided part of the cash was paid up front, which was not accepted by the debtor.”, VNR told NCLT that a techno economic viability study by Itcot Consultancy and Services showed technical and feasible viability.

A senior company official said, “Creditors have looked at the proposal with prejudice and thus the whole purpose of the Code is defeated.”

Bhupen Electronic

Bhupen’s committee of creditors proposed liquidation on grounds that it had not been operational for almost a decade and did not have anyone on its payroll.

VIP Finvest Consultancy initiated insolvency proceedings against Bhupen Electronic. The committee of creditors did not come up with any resolution plan nor receive one from any of the parties involved.

Since land and its building were the sole fixed assets of the company, lenders suggested liquidation rather than another 90-day extension for working out a resolution plan.


Go to Source

NCLT’s maiden orders: 2 firms asked to wind …

Brian Sanchez

The National Company Law Tribunal has created history under the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code it last week ordered winding up of two companies – VNR Infrastructures and Bhupen Electronic – after the borrowers and lenders failed to come up with a plan to revive operations. These companies, though small, set a precedent that the new law is living up to its promise of delivering justice in a time-bound manner.

The Hyderabad bench of the tribunal orally pronounced a liquidation order for VNR while a judgement on liquidation of Bhupen Electronic was passed by Mumbai bench. ET considers antecedents in both cases.

VNR Infrastructures

Promoted by Andhra MLC Vakati Narayan Reddy, the company approached the NCLT in February for initiating corporate insolvency. Its petition showed net worth completely eroded and a loss of Rs 125 crore. The State Bank of India and others had a joint exposure of Rs 1,102 crore in the company as loans and guarantees.

An inde pendent valuation report valued VNR at Rs 80 crore. The company pro posed a resolu tion plan in volving Rs 850 crore, wherein 50% of the loan would be con verted into eq uity and the bal ance into debt payable over 15 years.

A second resolution plan proposed cash payment of Rs 300 crore over a single year. Senior bank officials said the lenders rejected both plans on grounds that VNR did not have the necessary cash flow to support payments.

“Also, when a company has a loan of over Rs 1,000 crore and is valued at Rs 80 crore, why would it want to make a one-time cash settlement of Rs 300 crore, a huge markup over the value of assets?” said a banker.

A person with direct knowledge of the development said, “Lenders conveyed to the company that they would accept a one-time settlement of Rs 300 crore provided part of the cash was paid up front, which was not accepted by the debtor.”, VNR told NCLT that a techno economic viability study by Itcot Consultancy and Services showed technical and feasible viability.

A senior company official said, “Creditors have looked at the proposal with prejudice and thus the whole purpose of the Code is defeated.”

Bhupen Electronic

Bhupen’s committee of creditors proposed liquidation on grounds that it had not been operational for almost a decade and did not have anyone on its payroll.

VIP Finvest Consultancy initiated insolvency proceedings against Bhupen Electronic. The committee of creditors did not come up with any resolution plan nor receive one from any of the parties involved.

Since land and its building were the sole fixed assets of the company, lenders suggested liquidation rather than another 90-day extension for working out a resolution plan.


Go to Source

I-T dept’s Panama probe: Lens on Big B, othersAsked whether information linked to the allegations against Bachchan was being pursued, an official said: “Mr Bachchan has said he does not own any of the firms named in the documents. So we just can’t…

Brian Sanchez

NEW DELHI: The income tax department is “aggressively” pursuing names that emerged in the
Panama Papers+
, including Bollywood superstar
Amitabh Bachchan+
, and has dispatched a top-level officer to the British Virgin Islands to access information, a senior official has said.

The British Virgin Islands in the Caribbean is considered to be among several tax havens. The tax department has launched 33 prosecutions linked to the names revealed in the Panama Papers and is probing others.

“There is no let-up in investigations. We are aggressively seeking information from other countries,” the official, who did not wish to be identified, told TOI. After Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif was removed by the country’s top court in connection with the Panama Papers case, there has been criticism that tax authorities in India are dragging their feet.

Asked whether information linked to the allegations against Bachchan was being pursued, the official said: “Mr Bachchan has said he does not own any of the firms named in the documents. So we just can’t launch a probe. We have to seek information.”

“We have sent a senior CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) officer to the British Virgin Islands to gather information and we are also seeking information from various other countries and then we will have to analyse and see if there are any violations,” the official said.

Names of several film stars, politicians and businessmen figured in the so-called Panama Papers. Bachchan has denied any wrongdoing, and has said that his remittances overseas were in line with Indian regulations. He has also denied any links with the firms named in the Panama Papers. “Some of the accounts which were revealed are also genuine and those named have come forward to give details. It is a long-drawn process of seeking information,” said the official.

Panama Papers are leaked documents from a Panama-based law firm – Mossack Fonseca, which has offices in 35 countries. It has 11.5 million documents, involving 2,14,000 offshore entities covering a time period between 1977 and 2015. The Panama Papers reveal names of 140 political figures from 50 countries with links to offshore accounts. These include 12 current or former heads of state as well as sportspersons, administrators and 29 billionaires from the Forbes rich list.

India has joined a global task-force on shared intelligence and collaboration to pursue progress on the Panama Papers investigations.


Read this story in Bengali



Read this story in Marathi


Read this story in Gujarati


Go to Source