Author: Brian Sanchez

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Power Solutions International, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – PSIX

Brian Sanchez

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 23, 2016 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Power Solutions International, Inc. (“PSI” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: PSIX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and docketed under 16-cv-08253, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired PSI securities between May 8, 2015 and August 15, 2016 both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased PSI securities during the Class Period, you have until October 21, 2016 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]

PSI designs, manufactures, distributes, and supports power systems and custom engineered integrated electrical power generation systems for industrial original equipment manufacturers of off-highway industrial equipment and on-road medium trucks and buses. The Company sells its products and services primarily in North America, as well as in the Pacific Rim and Europe.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company inappropriately recognized revenue for certain transactions; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, PSI’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 15, 2016, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release and filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), announcing that the Company needed additional time to file its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 with the SEC.

On this news, PSI’s share price fell $1.52 per share, or 9.85%, to close at $13.91 on August 16, 2016.

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.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

Sebi tightens norms for private equity deals in listed firms

Brian Sanchez

Mumbai: The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has proposed tighter norms for compensation agreements between private equity (PE) firms and promoters or key management of listed firms in which they invest.

Sebi has also allowed foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) to trade directly in corporate bonds and eased norms for investment vehicles such as Infrastructure Investment Trusts (InvITs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) among key decisions announced after its board met on Friday. 

Sebi said performance-based compensation agreements between PE funds and management, when executed without prior approval of shareholders, are potentially unfair. It has proposed to amend its listing regulations to add provisions that will require such deals to be disclosed and get prior approval of shareholders.

The regulator also wants that any such existing deals be disclosed to stock exchanges and approvals be obtained from the boards and shareholders. All these proposals will be part of a discussion paper that Sebi will unveil soon. 

These “will certainly increase transparency and strengthen governance in listed companies,” said Tejesh Chitlangi, partner at law firm IC Legal.

The Sebi board also decided to allow the so-called Category I and Category II FPIs to directly access the corporate bond market without brokers, in line with permissions for domestic institutions such as banks and insurance companies.

Category-I FPIs include sovereign wealth funds and central banks and Category-II FPIs include mutual funds and banks. This move will help deepen the corporate bond market in India.

This “would enable FPIs to execute their proprietary strategies with greater efficiency”, said Richie Sancheti, head of investment at law firm Nishith Desai Associates. “However, whether this route is utilized would depend on the compliance burden.”

Thirdly, the board has relaxed the control and holding structure for InvITs and REITs which have failed to take off despite being cleared two years ago. They can now invest in a two-level structure—i.e. invest in a holding company which has investments in other special purpose vehicles (SPVs), which subsequently hold real estate or infrastructure assets. This is subject to safeguards such as the right to appoint majority directors in the SPVs and control over cashflows. The mandatory sponsor holding in InvIT has been reduced from 25% to 15% and the limit on the number of sponsors removed. REITs can now invest up to 20% in under-construction projects. 

The regulator has also proposed tighter norms for investment advisers. It said it will revisit the exemption provided to brokers and mutual fund distributors for whom investment advice is incidental to their main activity. It has suggested an advertisement code for investment advisers, restrictions on trading tips via bulk SMS and e-mail, and a ban on soliciting investors through games or leagues related to securities markets. 

Even for offering online investment advisory services, entities will be required to get a Sebi registration. Besides, Sebi has said it will grant permanent registration to intermediaries such as merchant bankers, credit rating agencies and so on, instead of the two-step process it currently follows.

anirudh.l@livemint.com

First Published: Sat, Sep 24 2016. 12 38 AM IST

Go to Source

Financial Services Firms’ Reputation Still Shadowed by 2008 Crisis

Brian Sanchez



The 2008 financial crisis continues to be felt by financial services firms and consumers, according to a new survey by Makovsky, a communications firm.

Ebiquity conducted an online poll of two groups for Makovsky in the spring: 228 executives responsible for the management and supervision of communications, marketing and investors relations for their financial services company of 500 or more employees, and a random sample of 1,079 adults representing the general U.S. population.



In fact, 61% of respondents said improving customer service was very important to strengthening their company’s reputation over the next year. Makovsky said this may explain why more than half of firms surveyed had conducted research into the effect of their reputation-building programs among over the past year.

Besides differentiating themselves from traditional competitors through customer service, more than three-quarters of communication professionals were worried about losing customers to alternative financial services providers such as Apple, Google and Amazon—which Makovsky said is a valid concern based on consumers’ survey responses. Although most consumers still preferred to trust traditional financial institutions with their personal information and privacy, 33% of respondents saw online banking accounts and 30% digital wallets as trustworthy alternatives to traditional banking solutions.

Go to Source

Law society flags issue of lawyers looking for business inside hospitals

Brian Sanchez

Possible ethical concerns with advertising legal services to people in hospitals — who may be injured, and potentially vulnerable — have recently been flagged by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Several Ottawa hospitals said they have corporate policies prohibiting advertising by lawyers, but at least one local personal injury lawyer told CBC News, it still happens.

“I’ve had clients in the hospital, I go to see them, and they’ve got a stack of business cards from lawyers who’ve some how been able to penetrate the hospital and hand them out,” said Brenda Hollingsworth from Ottawa law firm, Auger Hollingsworth.

Brenda Hollingsworth

Despite hospital policies that don’t allow ads for legal services, lawyers are still ‘penetrate the hospital[s],’ according to personal injury lawyer Brenda Hollingsworth.

She said she has no proof, but she’s heard from clients, “someone pops in [their hospital room] and says, ‘Oh, I have a client next door, I just thought I’d see if you need me.’ Different stories like that.”

Concerns about possible “tasteless or offensive advertisements” in hospitals were raised in an interim report released by the law society in June.

It said nowadays, “lawyers and paralegals market directly to consumers” including on “benches in front of hospitals, and in hospitals.”

That same report also raised questions about the increasing amount of advertising in Ontario from personal injury lawyers, and referral fees some of them may be collecting — a practice that’s at the centre of a private members’ bill from former Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak.

Increase of personal injury ads in Ottawa, says professor

“There is a rule, or a principle, that says you shouldn’t be advertising, or trying to meet with future clients, when these people are in a vulnerable position. And that’s the case with people who are in hospital,” said Charles-Maxime Panaccio, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.

Charles-Maxime Panaccio

There’s been an increase in advertising from personal injury lawyers in Ottawa in the last few years, said Charles-Maxime Panaccio from the University of Ottawa.

He said he hasn’t heard of lawyers in Ottawa sneaking into hospitals, but he has noticed an increase in advertising from personal injury lawyers across the city in the last five years.

Both the Ottawa Hospital and the Queensway-Carleton Hospital said they have turned down requests from personal injury firms to advertise inside the hospitals, and they claim they have not received complaints from patients about lawyers trying to quietly solicit services.

The Montfort Hospital said its policy “does not allow any type of commercial advertising,” and it has also not received patient complaints.

But Brenda Hollingsworth said, “lawyers are in the hospitals anyway,” and she hopes they may one day consider allowing some hospital-approved advertising, rather than the current “surreptitious solicitation of clients.”

In October, the Law Society of Upper Canada is expected to decide what, if anything, needs to be done about Ontario lawyers’ advertising practices, including possible amendments to rules of professional conduct.

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against MGT Capital Investments, Inc. and Certain Officers – MGT

Brian Sanchez

NEW YORK, Sept. 23, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against MGT Capital Investments, Inc. (“MGT” or the “Company”) (NYSE:MGT) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-07449, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired MGT securities between May 9, 2016 and September 20, 2016 both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).  This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased MGT securities during the Class Period, you have until November 21, 2016 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]

MGT, together with its subsidiaries, purports to acquire, develop, and monetize assets in the online, mobile, and casino gaming space. The Company operates through two segments, Gaming and Intellectual Property.

On May 9, 2016, MGT announced that it had entered into a definitive asset purchase agreement to acquire certain assets and technology from D-Vasive Inc. (“D-Vasive”), a provider of anti-spy software (the “D-Vasive Transaction”).  In conjunction with the transaction, MGT announced the proposed appointment of Defendant John McAfee (“McAfee”) as the Company’s Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), and that the Company intended to change its corporate name to John McAfee Global Technologies, Inc.  MGT further advised investors that “[m]ajor terms of the deal include the payment to D-Vasive Inc. stockholders of 23.8 million restricted shares of MGT stock and $300,000 in cash.  The proposed share issuance is expected to amount to roughly 47% of the Company on a pro-forma diluted basis at closing.”

On May 26, 2016, MGT announced that it had entered into a definitive asset purchase agreement to acquire certain technology and assets from Demonsaw LLC (“Demonsaw”), which the Company touted as “a provider of a secure and anonymous file sharing software platform.”  MGT further advised investors that “[m]ajor terms of the deal include the payment to Demonsaw LLC members of 20.0 million restricted shares of MGT common stock.  The proposed share issuance is expected to amount to approximately 28% of the Company’s common stock on a pro-forma fully diluted basis at closing, inclusive of shares of common stock to be issued in connection with the Company’s previously announced transaction with D-Vasive, Inc.”  The Company and D-Vasive would subsequently arrange for D-Vasive to purchase Demonsaw in advance of the D-Vasive Transaction, “in order to simplify these transactions, and meet certain customary tax issues,” so that MGT would acquire Demonsaw’s assets as well as D-Vasive’s via the D-Vasive Transaction.

On September 9, 2016, MGT announced that at the Company’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, its stockholders had approved, inter alia, the issuance of a total of 43.8 million shares of common stock in connection with the D-Vasive Transaction.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) the NYSE was unlikely to approve the listing of the 43.8 million additional shares that the Company was required to issue to consummate the D-Vasive Transaction; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, MGT’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 

On September 19, 2016, pre-market, MGT announced that on September 15, 2016, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting certain information from the Company.  MGT stated that it had no reason to believe that the Company is or will be the subject of any enforcement proceedings and was fully cooperating to comply with the SEC’s request. 

On this news, MGT stock fell $0.74, or 22.7%, to close at $2.52 on September 19, 2016.

Then, on September 20, 2016, pre-market, MGT announced that the NYSE had informed the Company on September 19, 2016 that it would “not approve the listing on the Exchange of the 43.8 million shares that the Company is required to issue in order to complete the closing of the D-Vasive [sic] merger,” and that “[t]he Company and John McAfee remain committed to closing the transaction and are exploring alternatives.”

On this news, MGT stock fell $0.63, or 25%, to close at $1.89 on September 20, 2016.

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

/EIN News/ — 

CONTACT:
                    Robert S. Willoughby
                    Pomerantz LLP
                    rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Third Class Action against Niantic, Inc., The Pokémon Company, and Nintendo Co. Ltd.

Brian Sanchez 



NEW YORK, Sept. 23, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP announces that a third class action lawsuit has been filed against Niantic, Inc. (“Niantic”), The Pokémon Company (“Pokémon Co.”), and Nintendo Co. Ltd. (“Nintendo”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Niantic, a software development company, is the developer and publisher of the Pokémon Go mobile game.  Pokémon Co. is responsible for marketing and licensing the Pokémon franchise.  Nintendo is the publisher of the popular Pokémon video game series and owns a 32% stake in Defendant Pokémon Co.  Each of the three defendants receives a percentage of all revenues generated by the Pokémon Go mobile application.



The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-04556, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons whose use and enjoyment of their property has been affected by the Pokémon Go mobile game. 



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.




        Pokémon Go is the latest iteration of the immensely popular Pokémon media franchise, which consists in large part of a series of video games in which players take on the role of “trainers” with the goal of capturing and collecting fantasy creatures called Pokémon.  Released on July 6, 2016 in the United States, Pokémon Go is an “augmented reality” game in which players use their smart phones to “catch” Pokémon in the players’ real-world surroundings by utilizing the GPS, camera, and gyroscope features on users’ mobile devices.  When the game detects, via GPS, that players are in the vicinity of certain real-world locations, the GPS coordinates of which were selected and programmed into the mobile application by Niantic and known to Pokémon Go players as “Pokéstops” and “Pokémon gyms,” the players gain access to potentially vital in-game items, which they can use to catch Pokémon, among other purposes, or gain the opportunity to engage in virtual “battles” with other Pokémon Go players. 




        Pokémon Go was an immediate success.  In the two months since its release, Pokémon Go has been downloaded more than 30 million times and earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. 



However, within days of the game’s release, it became clear that a number of the GPS coordinates that Niantic had designated as Pokéstops and Pokémon gyms were, in fact, on or directly adjacent to private property, and that Niantic had placed these Pokéstops and Pokémon gyms without the consent of the properties’ owners.  As a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Pokémon Go players have repeatedly trespassed on and damaged private property.  The intentional, unauthorized placement of Pokéstops and Pokémon gyms on or near the property of Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class constitutes a continuing invasion of the class members’ use and enjoyment of their properties, committed by Niantic on an ongoing basis for Defendants’ profit. 



“Defendants recklessly developed and marketed a product without properly considering its impact on private homeowners, depriving them of their right to enjoy their property without nuisance.  The Pokémon Company, Nintendo, and Niantic failed to realize that their virtual game has very real-world consequences,” said Jeremy A. Lieberman, attorney for the plaintiffs.



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/pomerantz-law-firm-announces-the-filing-of-a-third-class-action-against-niantic-inc-the-pokemon-company-and-nintendo-co-ltd-300333540.html


SOURCE  Pomerantz LLP



Copyright (C) 2016 PR Newswire. All rights reserved



    



                            

                            

                                  

      

      

      

      

      

      

      

      





                








Go to Source

Power Solutions International Inc : Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Power Solutions International, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – PSIX

Brian Sanchez

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 23, 2016 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Power Solutions International, Inc. (“PSI” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: PSIX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and docketed under 16-cv-08253, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired PSI securities between May 8, 2015 and August 15, 2016 both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased PSI securities during the Class Period, you have until October 21, 2016 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]

PSI designs, manufactures, distributes, and supports power systems and custom engineered integrated electrical power generation systems for industrial original equipment manufacturers of off-highway industrial equipment and on-road medium trucks and buses. The Company sells its products and services primarily in North America, as well as in the Pacific Rim and Europe.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company inappropriately recognized revenue for certain transactions; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, PSI’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 15, 2016, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release and filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), announcing that the Company needed additional time to file its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 with the SEC.

On this news, PSI’s share price fell $1.52 per share, or 9.85%, to close at $13.91 on August 16, 2016.

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.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – ARA

Brian Sanchez

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 23, 2016 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. (“American Renal” or the “Company”) (NYSE: ARA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-06841, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired American Renal securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to American Renal’s false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering on or about April 21, 2016 (the “IPO” or the “Offering”); and/or (2) on the open market between April 21, 2016 and August 18, 2016, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased American Renal securities during the Class Period, you have until October 31, 2016 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]

American Renal operates as a dialysis services provider in the United States focused exclusively on joint venture partnerships with physicians. The Company, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates kidney dialysis facilities for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease (“ESRD”). As of March 31, 2016, it owned and operated 194 dialysis clinics in 25 states and the District of Columbia.

On or about April 21, 2016, American Renal completed its IPO, issuing 8.625 million shares of common stock and raising net proceeds of approximately $189.75 million.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) American Renal was engaged in a fraudulent scheme to steer patients away from qualified-for Medicare and Medicaid plans into more expensive Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) plans to obtain greater reimbursement for the Company’s dialysis services; (ii) the foregoing scheme was in violation of federal and state laws; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, American Renal’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 1, 2016, three insurance companies filed a lawsuit against American Renal and an affiliated entity in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that American Renal was engaged in a “fraudulent and illegal scheme” that involved persuading patients who qualified for Medicare or Medicaid coverage to enroll in commercial healthcare plans and then putting those patients in touch with an American Renal-patronized charity that would pay the patients’ insurance premiums in full or in part. As Medicaid and Medicare provide for only predetermined reimbursement rates for dialysis services, the suit alleges that American Renal would thus receive much larger reimbursements from the ACA insurer as a commercial payor than it would have from Medicare or Medicaid coverage.

On news of the lawsuit, American Renal’s stock price fell $2.82 per share, or 9.88%, to close at $25.71 on July 5, 2016, the next trading day.

On August 18, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (the “Agency”), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announced that it had sent warning letters to all dialysis centers that participate in the federal Medicare program. The Agency also stated that it is weighing financial penalties on providers found to have directed people eligible for Medicare into ACA plans instead?as American Renal is alleged to have done.

On this news, American Renal’s share price fell $2.31, or 10.44%, to close at $19.81 on August 19, 2016.

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.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Yirendai Ltd. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – YRD

Brian Sanchez

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 23, 2016 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Yirendai Ltd. (“Yirendai” or the “Company”) (NYSE: YRD) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-06506, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Yirendai American Depositary Shares (“ADS” or “share”) between May 11, 2016 and August 24, 2016 both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Yirendai securities during the Class Period, you have until October 25, 2016 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]

Yirendai is a peer-to-peer lending company headquartered in China that purportedly connects investors and individual borrowers. The Company claims to have facilitated over $1.9 billion in loans from its inception in March 2012 through December 31, 2015.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was experiencing an increasing amount of fraud related to customer applications for its loan products; (ii) the implementation of new anti-fraud regulations by the Chinese government, in response to increasing fraud in the industry, could have a negative impact on the Company’s performance; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Yirendai’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 24, 2016, Bloomberg reported that China had imposed limits on peer-to-peer lending, citing authorities’ concern over defaults and fraud among the nation’s 2,349 online lenders. Specifically, Bloomberg reported that under the new regulations, lenders are barred from taking public deposits or selling wealth management products, and must appoint qualified banks as custodians and improve information disclosure. Bloomberg also reported that individual borrowing is now limited to 1 million yuan ($150,000) from peer-to-peer websites, including a maximum of 200,000 yuan from any one site.

On this news, Yirendai’s share price fell $6.92, or 22%, to close at $24.52 per share on August 24, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Concordia International Corp. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – CXRX

Brian Sanchez

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 23, 2016 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Concordia International Corp. (“Concordia” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: CXRX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-06749, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Concordia securities between November 12, 2015 and August 12, 2016 inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Concordia securities during the Class Period, you have until October 14, 2016 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]

Concordia is a specialty pharmaceutical company that purportedly owns a portfolio of branded and generic prescription products which are sold to wholesalers, hospitals and pharmacies in over 100 countries.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was experiencing a substantial increase in market competition against the Company’s drug, Donnatal, and other products; (ii) consequently, the Company’s financial results would suffer and the Company would be forced to suspend its dividend; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Concordia’s business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 12, 2016, Concordia issued a press release announcing that it was lowering its 2016 guidance “to reflect the impact of unexpected competition on several products in our North America segment, and current foreign currency exchange rates.” The Company also announced that Adrian de Saldanha, Concordia’s Chief Financial Officer, was leaving the Company, and that Concordia’s Board unanimously agreed to suspend the Company’s $0.075 quarterly dividend.

On this news, Concordia’ stock price fell $6.33 per share, or 38%, to close at $10.03 per share on August 12, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source