Author: Brian Sanchez

NEW YORK, Feb. 10, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GoPro, Inc. (“GoPro” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:GPRO) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 18-cv-00265, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of GoPro between August 4, 2017 and January 5, 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 GoPro securities between August 4, 2017, and January 5, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until March 12, 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 quantity of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

GoPro, Inc. develops and manufactures wearable and gear mountable cameras along with related accessories.  Its primary product offerings include: HERO5/HERO6, a line of cloud-connected cameras; GoPro Plus, a cloud-based storage solution that enables subscribers to access, edit and share content; Quik, a desktop app that provides expanded editing options for power users; Capture, a mobile app that allows users to preview and play back shots, control their GoPro cameras, and share content on the move using their smartphones; Karma, a compact, foldable drone and versatile stabilization solution; and Karma Grip, a handheld and body-mountable camera stabilizer to capture zero-shake and smooth video. GoPro markets and sells its products primarily through retailers and distributors, as well as through its website.

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) demand for the GoPro brand had dramatically declined and retailers were not stocking up for 2017 holiday sales to the extent GoPro had budgeted for; (ii) demand for GoPro’s Karma drones was sufficiently weak that the Company could no longer afford to manufacture and sell them profitably; (iii) the Company would be forced to dramatically slash prices on its newly launched HERO6 Black and its dated HERO5 Black and HERO5 Session cameras, as well as its Karma drone, during the quarter and would need to further slash HERO6 prices in January 2018; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, GoPro was not on track to achieve the financial results it had led the market to believe it was on track to achieve during the Class Period.

On Monday, January 8, 2018, before the open of trading, GoPro issued a press release filed on Form 8-K with the SEC entitled “GoPro Announces Preliminary Fourth Quarter 2017 Results,” revealing that its fourth quarter 2017 sales were $340 million, significantly below analysts’ projections of over $470 million.  GoPro blamed the results on the slashing of prices for its HERO6 Black, HERO5 Black, and HERO5 Session cameras, as well as its Karma drone, during the quarter, which the Company had been forced to engage in to move inventory and which had a negative $80 million impact on revenues. GoPro also disclosed it was cutting more than one-fifth of its workforce and exiting the drone market altogether, requiring it to dump the rest of its Karma drone inventory. GoPro had cut the price for its HERO5 Black camera in December 2017 and announced it was now reducing the price of its newly launched HERO6 model to $399 from $499. The workforce reduction would cost GoPro $33 million, mainly in severance costs.

On this news, GoPro’s stock price declined, falling from a close of $7.52 per share on January 5, 2018, to trade as low as $5.04 per share in intraday trading on January 8, 2018, before closing at $6.56 per share on unusually high trading volume of more than 59 million shares traded.

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

/EIN News/ —

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Feb. 10, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against EKSO Bionics Holdings, Inc. (“Ekso” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:EKSO) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 18-cv-00212, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Ekso between March 15, 2017 and December 27, 2017, 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 Ekso securities between March 15, 2017, and December 27, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until March 5, 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 quantity of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. designs, develops, and sells exoskeletons for use in the healthcare, industrial, military, and consumer markets in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The Company operates through Medical Devices, Industrial Sales, and Engineering Services segments. It primarily offers Ekso GT, a bionic suit that provides the ability to stand and walk over ground to individuals with spinal cord injuries, hemiplegia, and lower limb paralysis or weakness.   

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) Ekso had a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting; (ii) accordingly, Ekso’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Ekso’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 14, 2017, Ekso filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC, advising investors that “the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, should no longer be relied upon and that a material weakness in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting existed as of such date.”  Specifically, Ekso stated that its announcement was due to a reevaluation of the Company’s information technology (“IT”) controls by OUM & Co. LLP (“OUM”), the Company’s auditor.  Ekso stated that it intended “to amend our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods ended March 31, 2017, June 30, 2017 and September 30, 2017 to reflect the conclusion by management that there was a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting and that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of the end of the periods covered by these reports.”  On this news, Ekso’s share price fell $0.15, or 6.17%, to close at $2.28 on December 15, 2017.  

On December 27, 2017, post-market, Ekso filed an amended annual report for 2016 and amended quarterly reports for the first three quarters of 2017 on Form 10-Q.  On this news, Ekso’s share price fell $0.34, or over 13%, to close at $2.23 on December 28, 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.

/EIN News/ — CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888.476.6529 Ext. 9980

Go to Source

Go to Source

A row has broken out between Airbnb and rival online letting agencies over rules that are supposed to stop hosts letting out their homes for more than 90 days a year.

The Californian company says that one year on from its introduction of an automatic block that kicks in once a host has notched up 90 days of lettings, no other online agency has followed suit.

Hosts are required by law to seek planning permission if they want to go beyond the 90-day limit. This is intended to prevent disturbances from unofficial and unregulated hotels. 

Airbnb, which has more than 75,000 London properties on its website, said it has commissioned research showing a spike in listings on other platforms after it announced its intention to introduce the cap.

According to the analysis by data company Transparent, Airbnb’s biggest rivals, Booking.com, Home-Away, TripAdvisor and Casamundo, have a combined 40,000 listings — none limited by an automatic 90-day cap.

James McClure, northern Europe general manager at Airbnb, said it was “the only platform that works with London to promote the rules and limit how often hosts can share their homes. We are proud to help Londoners share their homes responsibly and are disappointed others are failing to take similar steps to help make London stronger”.

Maps show how rental giant took over London

But a spokeswoman for TripAdvisor said: “It is each homeowner’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with local legislation. For platforms like ours, enforcement of London’s 90-day limit on short-term rentals is on a  voluntary basis.”

A spokeswoman for German-owned Casamundo said it had no contact details for homeowners, so “we expect and assume that our partners block calendars of accommodations when their limit of days has been reached”.

London Assembly member Tom Copley, who compiled a report on the abuse of the rules, said all hosts should have to register with a council, adding: “Cash-strapped local authorities are struggling to enforce against people who turn their homes into hotels by the back door.” 

A spokesman for the Mayor said he was working with boroughs “to improve data-sharing so that those who abuse the system can be better targeted”. 

A spokesman for US-owned Home-Away said it was in discussions with the Greater London Authority “to work out the best solution for the application of the short-term rental regulations”.

Booking.com said it had announced partnership initiatives with governments across Europe so that it can help find “constructive solutions”.

Go to Source

Go to Source

BOSTON, Feb 8 (Reuters) – Sidley Austin LLP has hired a partner to head its activism practice as the law firm positions itself to pull in more work from corporations being targeted by money managers pushing executives to cut costs and improve operations.

Kai Liekefett joined Sidley’s M&A group from Vinson & Elkins, the law firm said on Thursday. Liekefett will work from Sidley’s New York office and head a team that is still being put together.

The move to hire Liekefett came as the world’s biggest law firms are jockeying to capture more of the work that comes when activist investors like Elliott Management and ValueAct Capital push companies to shake up their playbook, often by selling businesses.

“Activist work often leads to M&A work,” said Scott Freeman, co-leader of Sidley’s global M&A and Private Equity groups, “and we expect to cross-sell Kai’s work.”

Liekefett pushed Vinson & Elkins, a Houston-headquartered firm, to the top of the industry league tables. In the first half of 2017, V&E advised 16 companies being targeted by money managers, ThomsonReuters data show. Skadden, Arps, and Morgan Lewis followed in second and third place. Sidley, one of the world’s top 10 law firms with 2,000 attorneys, was not listed.

Liekefett studied law in Germany and worked in London, Hong Kong and Tokyo, something that may appeal to clients as activist investors move beyond U.S. borders. One of last year’s biggest activist campaigns was launched when New York-based hedge fund Third Point began pushing Swiss company Nestle S.A. for changes, including selling its stake in L‘Oreal. (Reporting by Svea Herbst-Bayliss Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Go to Source

Mumbai: Wealth managers and brokerage firms have written to the capital markets regulator, protesting against its discussion paper on investment adviser norms saying it will hurt their business. 

On 2 January, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) issued a discussion paper, which proposed that distributors of financial products have to decide by March 2019 whether they want to be advisors or distributors.

Currently, many wealth management and brokerage firms offer both services with a so-called Chinese wall separating the two businesses to prevent conflicts of interest.

“Sebi’s proposal will require massive restructuring as the proposed norms are very restrictive and will prevent even a holding company from doing advisory business if its subsidiary is distributing financial products,” said a wealth manager of a large brokerage firm, who has seen the communication with the regulator. This person said that his firm would take a significant hit to revenues if it has to choose between distribution and advisory.

The Financial Planning and Stability Boards of India (FPSB), an association of financial planners in India, has also opposed the norms in the current format, writing to Sebi that this move could prompt advisors to shut down an already unviable business. 

Sebi did not answer an email sent on Tuesday.  

“The proposed norms will result in unwarranted commercial hardships to the financial services players as a large number of the diversified wealth managers currently render both advisory as well as distribution services. A wide range of Sebi norms on intermediaries recognize that conflicts are imminent in any financial services business. These conflicts have to be mitigated by way of disclosures (and) putting conflict resolution policies in place whilst acting in the best interest of the clients,” said Tejesh Chitlangi, Partner at law firm IC Universal Legal.

If the Sebi conditions are read literally, then banks too will need to give up investment advisor licenses as the distribution business is too big to be shut down, said the distribution head of a retail bank, on the condition of anonymity. 

Sebi’s discussion paper had invited comments from stakeholders till 23 January.

Currently, banks are the biggest distributors of mutual fund products. Prime Database data shows that six of the 10 highest commission-earning of all distributors are banks, who earned Rs1,487 crore in 2016-17. 

“The segregation of advice from distribution already exists. Beyond a point, a hermetically sealed separation is neither possible nor desirable from an investor perspective. It would result in the advice business to virtually shut shop. It would also result in distribution without advice, as incidental advice is sought to be non-exempt from Sebi registration. In other words, Sebi will be prescribing a requirement of misselling,” said Sandeep Parekh, Managing Partner, Finsec Law Advisors.

“This has been tried and its effect noted in the UK (United Kingdom), by its own regulator. Instead, Sebi should strengthen the separation of the two businesses and have a framework for regulating distribution at par with advice to reduce any arbitrage,” Parekh added.

“In all the previous avatars, the Sebi discussion paper seemed to focus only on mutual fund distribution. This time, the intent is also to capture equity advice and brokerages. Many of the brokerage firms are contemplating reduced allocation or shutting the research division as it typically does not generate so much revenue and brokerage revenues remains the main stay,” said the head of brokerage firm. 

Go to Source

GARBAGE SCAM
Seven of nine tainted firms in for new contracts

By Chaitanya Marpakwar

Garbage transport contracts continue to raise a stink in the BMC. Close to six months after BMC filed police complaints against nine firms for mixing debris with garbage, the BMC has decided to blacklist only two of them while the others have been let off with meagre fines. To add insult to injury, those let off are likely to bag fresh tenders worth Rs 1,800 crore.

In September last year, unscrupulous garbage contractors had pulled a fast one on the BMC by transporting construction debris instead of solid waste. After realizing that it had been duped, the BMC registered police complaints against nine garbage contractors, and issued show cause notices. But six months later, the BMC has decided to blacklist only two of them

The reasoning provided by BMC is that only those against whom more than five instances of mixing debris with garbage were found would be blacklisted. “Among the nine, only two contractors fit the blacklisting criteria. We have issued a show cause notice to the two asking them why they must not be blacklisted. The others will be penalised,” said a senior civic official from BMC’s Solid Waste Management Department.

Last month, the civic standing committee had rejected a proposal to allot fresh contracts to tainted contractors and had asked the BMC to take action against them instead. “This is a clear case of connivance. We had demanded a SIT probe into the debris transport scam. It looks like there has been a deliberate delay to favour the contractors,” alleged Congress legislator Aslam Shaikh. In July this year, Shaikh had written to civic chief Ajoy Mehta, saying that he had found that trucks carrying garbage from different parts of the city submitted documents that said that the vehicles weighed exactly the same on different dates at various BMC-certified weighing scales.

Last month, the BMC had hinted that it may re-tender its Rs 1,800-crore garbage collection-transportation contract for the third time, as most of those who participated in the second round were tainted.

[embedded content]
“But it has now come to light that only two tainted contractors are being blacklisted and all others are bagging fresh contracts. In fact, they are being rewarded now. The entire exercise of issuing those notices and filing police complaints against them was a farce. Not one of the BMC complaints has resulted in any police action,” said Congress corporator Ravi Raja.

The SWM department moved a proposal to allot fresh contracts to tainted contractors but the proposal was deferred by the civic standing committee on Wednesday.

Around 7,100 tonnes of garbage is collected and transported by BMC and contractors daily.

Vijay Singhal, Additional Municipal Commissioner in-charge of Solid Waste Management, confirmed that two contractors were facing blacklisting. “We have issued notices to two of them and they have been barred from taking part in the new tenders. From the moment we issued them notices, we are treating them as nonresponsive. We have imposed a heavy penalty on the others as per the tender conditions,” Singhal said.

BMC officials said that according to the tender conditions only those contractors who were caught mixing debris with garbage more than five times could be blacklisted while others would be fined Rs 10,000 for every such instance. Apart from the two who will be blacklisted, officials said that two more contractors would face heavy penalty since they were also caught mixing debris more than five times but they didn’t submit inflated bills including the weight of the debris.

————————————————————————————————————

SILT SCAM
Co. linked to blacklisted firm gets Rs 7 cr contract

By Tanvi Deshpande

A firm with links to a blacklisted company is set to bag a Rs 7-crore contract for waste management. This, despite the BMC’s own legal department warning against it.

The BMC had invited bids for the Gorai Refuge Transport Station in November last year. The station handles around 300 metric tonnes of waste from all of Western suburbs before it is taken to one of the three big dumping grounds. The previous contract got over in October and the civic body invited bids for the management of the station. One of the bidders was Kaviraj MBB waste management Ltd, a company with links to Kaviraj Infratech, which was blacklisted in the nullah-desilting scam. As Kaviraj MBB emerged the lowest bidder, a proposal was tabled before the standing committee to allot the contract to them. However, there was much uproar in the Committee, following which the proposal was rejected unanimously in November.

The BMC has now brought the same proposal back, albeit after much back and forth and a legal opinion.

The law officer in the civic body’s own legal department gave a negative opinion saying that if a company is blacklisted, the same applies to its partner companies and affiliates as well.

However, the BMC then consulted its senior counsel Anil Sakhare, who said that the two companies are entirely separate entities and therefore, while Kaviraj Infratech may be blacklisted, Kaviraj MBB Waste management Ltd could bid, as it has nothing to do with it.

The matter was discussed at the highest level in the BMC and it was decided to allow Kaviraj MBB to bid. Since it is the lowest bidder, it is all set to bag the contract for a period of two years, merely two months after the whole proposal was rejected.

Minority shareholders from Kaviraj Infratech are majority shareholders in Kaviraj MBB Waste management Ltd. BMC’s law officer had claimed that General Contract Conditions of 1992 state that if one company gets deregistered, it’s (unregistered) affiliated company also cannot bids for contracts.

But the same rules also say that blacklisting is applicable only to the director, executive director and authorised signatory. The blacklisting order clearly names them. Since those are not directors in Kaviraj MBB and only minority shareholders, therefore BMC is not holding Kaviraj MBB as blacklisted.

“The administration has relied on the fact that the shareholders are not responsible for what is done by the Director. But we demand that those shareholders who have a larger role to play in a company should also be investigated. We want a discussion,” said BJP leader Manoj Kotak. SP leader Rais Shaikh said that they will demand an explanation from the administration. Leader of opposition Ravi Raja said he needed time to study the matter.

But shedding light on the issue, Additional Municipal Commissioner Vijay Singhal said, “The blacklisting order is very clear about who have been blacklisted. The names are mentioned. The same people are not directors in this company. That is why, after detailed discussion, we arrived at this decision.”

Go to Source

Mumbai: A working group formed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Thursday recommended introducing a “regulatory sandbox” to foster financial technology innovation in India and a standalone data protection law in the country.

The inter-regulatory working group set up in July 2016 recommended Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology (IDRBT), established by the RBI, in collaboration with the central bank, can maintain regulatory sandbox. The panel was set up to study regulatory issues relating to fintech and digital banking.

Commonly referred as a safe zone to test fintech innovation, sandbox is a hub where regulators enable limited roll-out of new products to customers. This is done to ensure that new product does not pose any risk to consumers or to the stability of the sector.

“An appropriate framework may be introduced for “regulatory sandbox/innovation hub” within a well-defined space and duration where financial sector regulators will provide the requisite regulatory support, so as to increase efficiency, manage risks and create new opportunities for consumers in Indian context similar to other regulatory jurisdictions,” the group said in its report, published on the RBI website on Thursday.

“Today, as far as small companies are concerned, the access to APIs (application programming interface) of banks is a big problem. A regulatory sandbox effectively creates a level playing field even for smaller fintech companies. Lot more innovations will happen because it will be a controlled environment with accessibility to everyone,” said Jitendra Gupta, managing director of PayU Payments India.

He added that intellectual properties of these fintech companies will also be protected because it will be visible to everyone. “The concept of sandbox regulation is on the similar lines of Singapore Authority, European nations and even Middle East,” said Gupta.

The panel also suggested the need for a self-regulatory body for fintech companies and a standalone data protection law in India.

“Currently, there are clauses in various laws. However, there is no data protection law as of now. The new law in data protection is set to come in March-end. Right now, there is a white paper on data protection under the chairmanship of (former Supreme Court) Justice B.N. Srikrishna, to which a lot of companies have already given their comments,” said Parag Mathur, general counsel and head of compliance, Bankbazaar.com.

The report said that between 2013 and 2014, the fintech industry in India grew 282% to reach $450 million in 2015. Currently, around 400 such firms are operating in the country and their investments are expected to grow by 170% by 2020.

The government’s push for digital payments and the Startup India Initiative has also led to the growth of the sector. Additionally, banks have been collaborating with fintech companies to enhance customer offering and business base through cost effective methods.

The group also recommended that financial sector regulators must engage with fictech entities to develop appropriate regulatory response and re-align existing supervisory framework. It has called for the need to develop deeper understanding of fintech products as well as increase awareness among consumers.

Go to Source

ROBERT Friedland, the boss of Ivanhoe Mines, a large Canadian firm that digs out copper and zinc in Africa, is not one for pessimism. In his speech to an annual mining industry jamboree, Mining Indaba, in Cape Town, his promises about the potential of the …
Go to Source