Chapman Tripp sees more shareholder lobbying in listed firms

Article – BusinessDesk

June 13 (BusinessDesk) New Zealand’s listed companies are set to face a growing tide of shareholder activism and increased demands for accountability, law firm Chapman Tripp says.Chapman Tripp sees more shareholder lobbying, increased accountability for listed firms

By Paul McBeth

June 13 (BusinessDesk) – New Zealand’s listed companies are set to face a growing tide of shareholder activism and increased demands for accountability, law firm Chapman Tripp says.

In a report on corporate governance trends released today, Chapman Tripp predicts more shareholder activism will follow recent showdowns, such as the tussles over director roles at property investor NPT and high-tech components maker Rakon. Meanwhile, new audit reports on the most significant issues identified by an auditor will allow investors to make more informed questions at annual meetings, which the law firm expects will see rising attendance due to lobbying by the New Zealand Shareholders’ Association to keep physical meetings in a hybrid model, while virtual meetings appeal to younger, tech-savvy investors.

Partner Roger Wallis says a growing appetite among younger New Zealanders for less capital-intensive assets, the digital-based opportunities for entrepreneurs, and expanding KiwiSaver and personal savings balances will boost people’s involvement in financial markets.

“We expect market participation rates will grow over the next 20 years due to a number of factors both economic and technological,” he said. “The recently updated NZX corporate government code will also be a driver for change, notably in the areas of company strategy, diversity, remuneration and environmental, economic and social reporting.”

The NZX code, released last month, was the first substantial overhaul of governance rules since 2003, spanning eight principals designed to protect the interests of and build long-term value for shareholders, encompassing ethics, board make-up, board committees, reporting and disclosure, remuneration, risk management, auditors and shareholder rights.

Chapman Tripp’s report shows the average board size of the top 75 listed companies was 5.8, with Fletcher Building and Heartland Bank having the biggest with nine directors. Of those firms, about three quarters had a majority of independent directors and a fifth had only independents. About 44 percent had their chief executive on the board.

The top 75 companies had 469 directors in total, of which 316 held just one directorship among those firms. Another 45 held two board roles, 13 had three, and six had four top 75 directorships. The average length of service was 5.8 years, with Hallenstein Glasson directors have the longest average tenure at 18.9 years followed by Mainfreight at 14.4 years.

(BusinessDesk)

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

Go to Source

Companies resist criminal liability law

Many firms still perceive the adoption of measures to prevent criminal prosecution as defined by the law only as further regulation, not a way to help them.

Nearly a year after the new law on criminal liability of legal entities was introduced, companies still have not changed their approach to adopting preventive measures that should protect them from potential investigation. They still perceive them as regulation and not natural behaviour that can help them develop, according to participants in the European Compliance Forum 2017, organised by law firm Ružička Csekes and consulting company Screening Solutions, held near Modra in mid-May.

“The small entrepreneurs consider it an administrative burden,” said Ján Palenčár, president of the National Association of Real Estate Agencies in Slovakia and vice-president of the Slovenský Živnostenský Zväz, an association representing self-employed trade and craft workers.

Awareness improves, but only slightly

The survey carried out by the company Screening Solutions in July and August 2016, showed that only 38 percent of respondents had implemented or planned to implement measures concerning the law on the criminal liability of legal entities.

Moreover, only 6 percent of respondents said that the law was beneficial for them, while 21 percent claimed that they do not see any merits.

Petr Moroz of Screening Solutions says that though more companies are aware of the changes and sanctions arising from the new law, there are still many that think they do not have to adopt the so-called compliance programmes, i.e. internal policies that deal with supervision over the compliance with legal regulations, which should mitigate any potential harm.

He added that until their company is punished according to the new law, they think the changes do not concern them.

“This is a difference between perceiving these programmes as laws and rules or as part of the company culture,” Moroz told The Slovak Spectator.

Read also:

Read also:Criminal liability: Firms should focus on prevention

Firms perceive the rules as a burden

Representatives of companies, however, say that the rules arising from the law on criminal liability of legal entities complicate their business.

In order to understand much of the legislation the companies have to observe, it is necessary to have a team of people to deal with it, according to Vladimír Slezák, head of the Slovak branch of Siemens.

“They need to find ways to do their business,” Slezák said during the discussion.

László Ivan, CEO of transport firm Arriva Slovakia, also says that due to the increasing number of rules his company needs to make more of an effort to keep their business going, instead of trying to find ways to help the company grow.

“It is important to seek a balance between the operation of the company and observing the rules,” he said, adding it is necessary to work with people and allow them to understand the work they are doing.

The problem is that many people consider the regulations as additional costs, according to Tomáš Zaťko, CEO of IT company Citatelo. But it would be better if they perceived it as a kind of added value.

Many companies only formally want to meet the conditions set by the regulations to avoid sanctions, Zaťko added.

Obligation or will?

For companies, however, it is important that they really feel that the measures adopted as part of the compliance programmes are a natural part of their business, Moroz said, explaining that if we merely apply some rules without believing in them, they will have no effect.

In his opinion, it is important how company representatives communicate their willingness to act responsibly within the company. There is a difference if top management on one hand dismisses people saying it is necessary to save funds, but on the other keeps purchasing expensive property and granting generous severance payments to its leaving members, Moroz said.

Another problem occurs when companies pretend to act responsibly and follow the compliance programmes on the outside, but behind closed doors they do not hesitate using corruptive practices in order to gain business.

“This really impacts the company culture,” Moroz stressed.

Therefore it is necessary to really decide what the aim of the company should be and how they want to do business.

“Though compliance programmes can limit us in some ways, as we probably will not be able to win some orders, our market value will continue increasing as the reputation risk will be low,” he added.

Read also:

Read also:Firms unaware of criminal liability

Not only big firms

Palenčár opines that the situation is different in regard to smaller enterprises. Since they employ a limited number of staffers it is easier to check and prevent them from committing crimes, though there may be some exceptions in certain sectors. He admitted that only a small portion of small and medium-sized companies have so far adopted compliance programmes.

Moroz, however, says it is important not only for big companies, but also for smaller enterprises to adopt compliance programmes in order to protect their business.

One of the common mistakes is that companies and their HR departments do not check job applicants.

“The HR people should be gatekeepers, deciding on who will be working for the company,” Moroz said.

In practice, however, they often fail to check the history of their future employees and the experience of their former employers with these persons, saying they are not police officers. Yet, Moroz stressed it is important to know as much as possible about people who will deal with company information.

“We are very sensitive about our private affairs, but we do not feel in this way about our company,” Moroz added.

Clash of company cultures

In this respect, western countries are much further ahead than Slovakia, though the situation is gradually improving compared with, for example, the 1990s, Moroz admitted.

“There is a difference though – whether a company was founded in our conditions and then was acquired by a foreign firm, or the foreign investor establishes a brand new subsidiary here,” he said.

The perception of the importance of compliance programmes will be certainly better in the latter case as in the former the companies have a certain culture and follow certain rules. Thus it is much more difficult to teach them that some things can be done differently.

The statistics show that the most problems occur among successful, small family companies acquired by foreign investors who retain the existing management but do not change their thinking about doing business.

It often happens that these firms are later subject to embezzlement, Moroz said.

To solve this problem, it is necessary to show the older management how company management works abroad and teach them more about the company’s own culture, he opines.

Ivan agrees, stressing it is not important that we must do something, but that we want to do something. It is also necessary to fully explain the processes to company employees.

“People need to see the results of their work and understand what and why they are doing it,” Ivan concluded.

Go to Source

President Uhuru proposes 35 per cent tax on betting firms

President Uhuru Kenyatta photo:courtesy

President Uhuru Kenyatta asked Parliament to approve a proposal to raise taxation on betting companies to 35 per cent.

He declined to assent to a proposal by the law makers to retain taxation at 15 per cent in the Finance Bill 2017. The National Assembly will consider the recommendation before the House goes on recess.

MPs had earlier shot down National Treasury Cabinet Secretary Henry Rotich’s amendment to the Finance Bill 2017 that had sought to tax gambling earnings by 50 per cent.

Mr Kenyatta’s decision is expected to trigger a new round of lobbying by the companies involved in the lucrative betting industry, whose earnings are the target of the new taxation measures as Treasury grapples with a widening budget deficit.

“President Kenyatta has returned the Finance Bill 2017 to Parliament, recommending reinstatement of the betting taxes clause increase to 35 per cent from 15 per cent,” said State House spokesman Manoah Esipisu.

The proposals, which are likely to sail through the House because the President’s Jubilee Party has a majority, have huge ramifications for the gaming industry.

ALSO READ:

President Uhuru orders audit of funds given for Nzoia cane farmers

COUNTER ARGUMENT

Taxes payable by gaming and betting firms would more than double, presenting a real possibility of curtailing the growth of the sector on which many young people rely for their livelihood in the face of soaring unemployment. 

There has, however, been counter-arguments about the industry, which has been accused of promoting social ills, especially among the youth, who are the biggest gambling constituency in the country.

House majority leader Aden Duale will now re-introduce the Bill for discussion as a matter of urgency because it is part of the law that legitimises levies and taxes.

In the unlikely event that the Finance Bill is shot down, the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) would not have the mandate to collect any taxes from July 1, when the new financial year begins.

It is expected that the betting firms will seek to influence the outcome because the MPs’ decision will be final.

Should they vote to retain the old taxation regime, President Kenyatta would be bound by the outcome and would have to sign the Bill into law.

ALSO READ:

President Uhuru recommends 35 percent tax on betting

SportPesa declined to comment on the President’s decision, asking for more time to assess the implications of the proposed law.

Previously, the firm had said the Rotich proposals would kill the gambling sector.

Rotich cited a need for stiffer regulation of the sector as the reason for the higher taxation proposals when he delivered his budget speech on March 30.

Go to Source

Sebi may ease listing norms for companies majority-owned by PE, VC firms

Mumbai: The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) plans to ease norms for companies which are majority owned by private equity (PE) and venture capital (VC) firms and seeking to list on stock exchanges.

Such firms will be allowed to list without their majority shareholders being classified as promoters, which brings with it certain obligations such as a lock-in period for shareholding, but who are granted some rights akin to what promoters hold, said two people aware of the matter.

Current rules classify firms as promoter-driven or professionally managed. In the first case, promoters have to contribute at least 20% of post-issue shareholding and promise not to sell this stake for at least three years. At the same time, they get some rights, such as the ones to appoint a majority of the directors or control the management or make policy decisions.

Companies that have no identifiable promoters are called professionally managed. Big shareholders get no special rights nor do they have to lock in their shares for three years (although pre-issue shareholders—with a few exceptions—have to lock in their shares for a year after listing). Thus, when PE- or VC-owned firms list, there is an exit of stakeholders who oversaw the growth phase of these companies, which is a key factor in such companies being hesitant to come to the market.

The new rules being considered are a relaxation of these lock-in norms while allowing key stakeholders to retain some of the special rights given only to promoters, the two people cited earlier said on condition of anonymity.

According to a study by Venture Intelligence, private equity deals in unlisted firms have increased from $5.23 billion in fiscal 2013 (39% of overall deals) to $16 billion in fiscal 2017 (73% of overall deals). A change in norms could help companies such as ReNew Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd, Sutures India Pvt. Ltd, CMS Info Systems Ltd, Ecom Express Pvt. Ltd and MEDALL Healthcare Pvt. Ltd to come to the market.

In May, Sebi chairman Ajay Tyagi held meetings with the country’s top investment bankers to draft new listing rules in a bid to boost the capital market by encouraging such companies to list, the two people said.

A Sebi spokesperson did not answer an email seeking comment.

“Getting listed is what all progressive-minded companies should aim for,” said Sanjiv Kaul, a partner at ChrysCapital, which has companies such as Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd in its portfolio. “All PE/VC firms are financial investors who would need an exit at some stage. The problem is that in a portfolio company where the majority stakeholder is a PE/VC, it is easier exiting the entire stake by selling it to another financial or strategic shareholder. The listing route becomes a limitation since it invariably involves partial exit and a lock-in thereafter, which may not be in sync with the PE/VC’s exit strategy.”

To be sure, Sebi had earlier relaxed some rules for start-ups wanting to raise money and trade on Indian stock exchanges on a so-called institutional trading platform. But there were no takers because the rules were prohibitive. For instance, only companies where no single shareholder owned less than 25% were allowed to list on the platform.

“One will of course need to examine the details under the new proposed norms, but this has been a legitimate and longstanding ask from PE/VC firms, given their nature is very different from that of promoters,” said Padmanabh Sinha, managing partner, Tata Capital Ltd, and vice–chairman of the Indian Private Equity and Venture Capital Association.

While relaxing threshold rules for principal shareholders such as PE/VCs is welcome, allowing them to retain special rights would be detrimental to shareholder democracy, said Sandeep Parekh, founder of law firm Finsec Law Advisors, and a former executive director at Sebi. “It is important to remember that even without any agreements, a 20% or 30% shareholder has overwhelming rights over the control of the company.”

“Such shareholders cannot have it both ways,” Parekh added.”The real solution is removal of the overly rigid requirements imposed in the last few years on who is and who is not a promoter. This flexibility, along with general relaxation of obligations that go along with ‘promoter-hood’, would be useful. Hardly one or two other countries have the concept of promoters enshrined in the law.”

Reghu Balakrishnan contributed to this story.

First Published: Wed, Jun 14 2017. 01 52 AM IST

Go to Source

Cabinet endorsees changes to Companies Law

AMMONNEWS – The Cabinet on Tuesday approved a bill amending the Companies Law.

The draft law aims at organising the work of companies through regulations ensuring that corporate governance is applied, expanding the oversight powers of shareholders in public shareholding companies, prohibiting individuals from assuming the posts of board chairperson and CEO of the same company at the same time, the Jordan News Agency, Petra, reported.

The bill also provides for legal requirements necessary to establish venture capital companies — which are established for purposes of direct investment or for creating funds to contribute or invest in high-growth companies that are not listed in the stock market.

The draft law seeks to help stumbling firms rectify their situations, Petra added.

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of Roche Holding AG – RHHBY

NEW YORK, June 13, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Roche Holding AG (“Roche” or the “Company”) (otcmkts:RHHBY).  Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

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

[Click here to join a class action]

On June 5, 2017, Roche issued a press release reporting results from a recent trial of the drugs Herceptin and Perjeta in combination as a breast cancer treatment, advising investors that the combination treatment offered only a slight benefit compared to treatment by Herceptin alone. 

On this news, Roche’s American Depositary Receipt price fell $1.76, or 5.12%, to close at $32.61 on June 5, 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

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-investigates-claims-on-behalf-of-investors-of-roche-holding-ag–rhhby-300473514.html

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP

Copyright (C) 2017 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

Go to Source

Cutting the UNC law school budget is a clumsy attempt to quiet a critic

The notion no doubt stunned not just alumni or faculty of the University of North Carolina School of Law, but those who’ve always seen the school as a producer of many of North Carolina’s community and political leaders.

The state Senate proposes to cut 30 percent of the school’s state appropriation, or $4 million. Thirty percent would likely mean cuts in faculty and other programs. And this proposal comes at a time when the state’s finances are doing well and the usual law school appropriation would not put a hardship on other parts of the budget.

The proposed cut isn’t aimed at Martin Brinkley, the respected and affable dean who took over in 2015 after a successful career in corporate law. Brinkley is a North Carolinian who moves well among Republicans and Democrats and he’s most interested in preparing law students for careers.

Rather, the proposal seems to squarely target Gene Nichol, another unquestionably brilliant faculty member who once directed the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity within the law school. It was seen as a liberal crusade for the disadvantaged and was shut down by the UNC system’s Board of Governors, which is now in the hands of conservative Republicans. Nichol promptly started the N.C. Poverty Research Fund under the UNC Law Foundation.

Throughout his career, Nichol’s been a regular contributor to The News & Observer’s opinion pages, including a series on the poor in North Carolina. He does not bend to criticism or hide from it – he listens to it. A former college football player, Nichol is perfectly willing to hear his critics and respond without rancor. But he has been, to be sure, a tough critic of Republican public policy in North Carolina.

This action against the law school is clearly aimed at Nichol. That’s not responsible budgeting. It’s petty revenge politics, and at its worst, it’s a dangerous attempt to muffle free speech in a place where it should thrive. If anything, his outspokenness spurs more intelligent debate from the right as well as the left.

Every year, the UNC law school turns out men and women who go not just to corporate law firms but also to their hometowns to defend people in district court and ensure their rights. And they take on important issues of personal freedom as well; many serve in local elective offices, helping to formulate ordinances about everything from the rights of those who demonstrate for causes in which they believe to the placement of bicycle lanes.

The law school, in other words, has turned out generation after generation of North Carolina’s leaders from the courthouse to Congress. That mission is needed; it is noble.

Republican legislators have control of the UNC Board of Governors and the General Assembly. Some of them are products of the UNC law school. They have nothing to fear from a professor who speaks his mind.

Go to Source

The White Law Group announces the filing of a FINRA Arbitration claim against Berthel Fisher & Co

EUGENE, Ore.June 13, 2017PRLog — The FINRA claim was filed by The White Law Group and submitted on behalf of a Eugene, Oregon couple alleging claims for violation of common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and negligent supervision. The claim further alleges that Berthel Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. unsuitably invested the clients in the following high risk private placement investments:

Cypress
Noble
Thompson Note
Keating Capital
Strategic Storage
Northstar
Master Private Equity

The claim seeks damages between $100,000 and $500,000.

Before recommending an investment, a broker-dealer has a fiduciary duty to adequately disclose the risks involved in the investment and to perform the necessary due diligence to determine whether the investment is suitable for the investor.

It is alleged Berthel Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. failed to perform the necessary due diligence on these investments prior to recommending them to these particular investors.

It is further alleged that the financial advisor that handled the accounts at issue is James Scott McKee. According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, McKee has been the broker of record for at least thirty (30) customer disputes for similar allegations.

“We believe there are many more investors who have suffered losses in high risk private placement investments who just don’t realize they have recourse, or may be unaware of any wrongdoing,” said D. Daxton White, managing partner of The White Law Group, a national securities fraud, securities arbitration, investor protection and securities regulatory/compliance law firm with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Vero Beach, Florida.

“Brokerage firms are required to supervise their advisors to ensure that they are complying with FINRA rules. If it can be determined that the financial advisor violated FINRA rules and the employers failed to adequately supervise him, these firms can be held responsible for any resulting losses in a FINRA arbitration claim.”

FINRA Dispute Resolution is an arbitration venue for investors with claims against their brokerage firm or financial professional.  It provides investors with an opportunity to attempt to recoup their investment losses without filing such claims in court.

The White Law Group is a national securities fraud, securities arbitration, and investor protection law firm with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Vero Beach, Florida.

For more information The White Law Group and the claim filed against Berthel Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc., please contact the firm at 1-888-637-5510 or visit https://www.whitesecuritieslaw.com.

Go to Source

Holiday firms to blacklist Brits who fake food poisoning for compensation claims

Brits who cash in on bogus food poisoning claims abroad will be banned from travelling with package holiday giants Thompson and First Choice.

The dramatic move to blacklist families comes after the sister firms saw a dramatic 1,400% surge in the number of sickness claims since 2013.

Parent company Tui revealed it has already compiled a dossier of names and will pass them onto other tour firms as well as hotel bosses in high risk claims destinations.

Its crackdown on travellers trying to fleece holiday firms to cover the cost of their summer breaks with a raft of false tummy bug claims comes amid fears this summer will see a dodgy compo bids go through the roof.

Nick Longman, UK managing director for Tui, told trade publication Travel Weekly: “This is clearly a massive issue for us – it’s a massive issue for the industry.

Brits make bogus gastroenteritis claims after returning from popular all-inclusive breaks to hotspots such as Albufeira, Portugal

“It’s not something we could have anticipated. It’s been an absolute explosion.”

And a spokesperson told the Mirror: “Thomson and First Choice are working closely with the industry, our hotel partners and overseas authorities to fight back on these claims.

“Where we have identified fraud we will consider prosecution and we will also blacklist customers from travelling on any further holidays with us.

“We are aware of some hoteliers taking direct action against claimants and we have already seen a number of cases where the hotelier has issued court proceedings against the customer alleging fraud.”

While industry body ABTA has logged a 500% rise in holiday sickness scams in the last four years, Tui said its figure is three times higher.

A spokesperson said: “Like all travel companies we are concerned by the unprecedented increase in illness claims that we’ve seen over the past few years.

“Claims have increased by over 1,400% since 2013 and it is clear that a large number of these are dishonest. We have many cases with evidence that there was no illness, or where the symptoms or duration have been exaggerated.”

The Costa Del Sol in Spain is another claims hotspot

In addition to its unprecedented block on Brits found to have made-up food poisoning claims for cash, Britain’s biggest holiday firm is also sending out warning letters to claimants urging them not to make fake compo demands as they will face legal action.

Claims cowboys promise Brits up to £5,000 in compo but payouts are between £500-£2,000, figures from insurance specialist BLM reveal.

A Thompson and First Choice spokesperson said: “We know that unscrupulous claims management companies are encouraging fabricated claims but we doubt that they are taking any time to explain the risks.

“UK holidaymakers should understand that if they make a fraudulent claim they could face prosecution at home or overseas and have their future holiday options severely limited.”

Rival firms Thomas Cook and Jet2 are expected to follow Tui’s ban on Brits making bogus gastroenteritis claims after returning from popular all-inclusive breaks to hotspots like Spain, Turkey, Greece and Portugal.

Holidaymakers often claim they contracted food poisoning after eating from a hotel buffet

Majorca based travel website Hosteltur revealed Joan Molas, president of The Spanish Confederation of Hotels and Tourist Accommodation (Cehat) has fired off strongly worded letters to the bosses of Tui, Thomas Cook, Jet2 and Monarch calling for tough action against Brits who play the compo system.

Slating the “ambulance chasers” from British claims management companies as no worse than an “organised criminal network”, he threatened to cut off ties with the UK all-inclusive industry if nothing was done to clamp down on them.

The latest twist comes as one Brit was arrested at the weekend and another quizzed by Spanish police over allegations they encouraged British tourists to submit fake sickness claims by touting for business at hotels in Alcudia, Majorca.

Spain has been the biggest target for out of control compo chasers who have given Britain the “fake sick man of Europe” tag.

The Costa del Sol, Costa Blanca, Costa Dorada and Benidorm have seen the highest number of scams as unscrupulous “no win – no fee” firms cash in on the lucrative sickness claims industry.

Benidorm has seen a high number of scams

Spanish hoteliers are calling for a blanket ban on millions of Brits taking all-inclusive breaks next year after bogus food poisoning claims rocketed 700% in 12 months.

According to the Hospitality Business Association of Benidorm and the Hotel Business Federation of Mallorca, Brits are fleecing the hotel industry of more than £50 million a year with dodgy gastroenteritis claims.

As the law stands, holidaymakers just need a receipt for a tummy bug product to file a claim once they are back home.

In Benidorm hotel owners have asked chemists not to sell stomach upset cures to Brits unless they have a prescription amid fears receipts will be used for over-inflated illness claims.

ABTA said holiday sickness scams were on the rise and branded them the “new PPI” and is calling on the Government to crack down on claims sharks to stop them from exploiting loopholes.

On its website the Foreign Office warns British holidaymakers of legal action if they are found to have made false claims.

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT:  Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Mazor Robotics Ltd. and Certain Officers – MZOR

NEW YORK, June 13, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Mazor Robotics Ltd. (“Mazor” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:MZOR) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-04422, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Mazor’s American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”)  securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Mazor securities between November 8, 2016 and June 7, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until August 8, 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 number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Mazor is a medical device company that purportedly develops and markets innovative surgical guidance systems and complementary products. The Company claims that its expertise is computerized and imaging-based systems, primarily in the field of spine surgery, and that its Surgical Guidance Systems enable surgeons to advance from freehand surgical procedures to accurate, pre-planned, state-of-the-art, precision guided procedures.

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) that the Company was engaged in conduct that subjected it to ISA investigation; (ii) that, as such the Company was exposed to potential liability; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Mazor’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.   

On June 8, 2017, Mazor disclosed to investors that the Israel Securities Authority (“ISA”) had conducted a search at the Company’s offices in May 2017 and questioned certain of Mazor’s officers in connection with an ISA investigation. 

On this news, Mazor’s ADR price fell $3.70, or 9.9%, to close at $33.67 on June 8, 2017.  The next day, the ADR price continued to decline, falling another $3.08, or 9.1%, to close at $30.59 on June 9, 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