Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Ford Motor Company of Class Action and Upcoming Deadline – F

NEW YORK, Nov. 18, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company (“Ford” or the “Company”) (NYSE: F) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Eastern District of Michigan, and docketed under 17-cv-13536, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ford securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ford securities between February 18, 2014, and October 26, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until December 29, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at [email protected] or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, and services cars and trucks. The Company also provides vehicle-related financing, leasing, and insurance through its subsidiary.

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) flaws in the Company’s manufacturing processes, supply chain, and/or quality control rendered at least 841,000 Ford vehicles unsafe to drive; (ii) the foregoing issues, when revealed, would foreseeably subject Ford to additional regulatory scrutiny and impact the Company’s profitability; and (iii) as a result, Ford’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 27, 2017, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) announced a preliminary investigation into 841,000 Ford vehicles, citing concerns that the vehicles’ steering wheels could detach while the vehicles are in motion. NHTSA stated that it is specifically investigating 2014-2016 model Ford Fusion sedans.

On this news, Ford’s share price fell $0.21, or 1.71%, to close at $12.06 on October 27, 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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
[email protected]

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert–pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-ford-motor-company-of-class-action-and-upcoming-deadline–f-300554310.html

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT:Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Navient Corporation of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – NAVI

NEW YORK, Nov 18, 2017 (BUSINESS WIRE) —
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Navient Corporation (“Navient” or the “Company”)

NAVI, -2.12%

and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Navient
securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Navient securities between
February 25, 2016, and October 4, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until December 15, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

[Click
here to join this class action]

Navient provides asset management and business processing services to
education, healthcare, and government clients at the federal, state, and
local levels in the United States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Navient engaged in deceptive practices to facilitate the origination of
subprime loans; (2) Navient committed unfair and deceptive acts by
steering student borrowers into payment plans that postponed bills,
allowing interest to accumulate, rather than helping them enroll in
income-driven repayment plans; and (3) as a result, Navient’s public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 5, 2017, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro announced
the filing of a lawsuit in United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania against Navient and one of its subsidiaries for
engaging in unfair and deceptive lending and failed to offer proper
prepayment plans to students (the “PA AG Lawsuit”). Specifically, the PA
AG Lawsuit alleged, among other things, that “Defendants unfairly and
deceptively engaged in a series of acts and practices to facilitate
originating . . . subprime loans to many borrowers who had a high risk
of defaulting” and “since at least 2011, despite publicly assuring
borrowers that [Navient] will help them identify and enroll in an
appropriate, affordable repayment plan, Defendants have routinely
disregarded that commitment and instead steered borrowers experiencing
long-term financial hardship into forbearance.”

On this news, Navient’s share price fell $2.10, or over 14% from its
previous closing price, to close at $12.60 on October 5, 2017, damaging
investors.

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

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171118005001/en/

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

Pomerantz LLP
Robert S. Willoughby
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

Copyright Business Wire 2017

Go to Source

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

NEW YORK, Nov. 18, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Intercept” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:ICPT) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-07371, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intercept securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Intercept securities between May 31, 2016, and September 20, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until November 27, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets biopharmaceutical products. The Company focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics to treat chronic liver diseases utilizing proprietary bile acid chemistry.  The Company’s lead product candidate, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid, or OCA), is a bile acid analog, a chemical substance that has a structure based on a naturally occurring human bile acid, that selectively binds to and activates the farnesoid X receptor, or FXR. On May 31, 2016, Intercept announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had approved Ocaliva for the treatment of patients with primary biliary cholangitis (“PBC”).

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) Ocaliva entailed undisclosed safety risks, including death, to patients suffering from PBC; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Intercept’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.   

On September 12, 2017, Intercept issued a letter warning physicians against overdosing patients with Ocaliva, advising them that the drug has been tied to liver injuries and death among patients suffering from PBC. 

On this news, Intercept’s share price fell $15.36, or 13.53%, to close at $98.12 on September 12, 2017.

On September 21, 2017, the FDA issued a safety announcement entitled “FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns about serious liver injury with Ocaliva for rare chronic liver disease,” warning doctors after reports of multiple deaths linked to the drug.

On this news, Intercept’s share price fell $24.42, or 24.88%, to close at $73.70 on September 21, 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


Go to Source

C.A. Affirms Dismissal of Law Firms in Conspiracy Action

Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Friday, November
17, 2017

 

Page 1

 

C.A. Affirms Dismissal of Law Firms in Conspiracy Action

Justice Johnson Says Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Properly Granted
Where Conduct Took the Form Of Legal Representation; Ruling Is Latest
Installment in Protracted Litigation Over $35 Million

 

By a MetNews
Staff Writer

 

The Court of
Appeal for this district yesterday affirmed a judgment of dismissal, pursuant
to an anti-SLAPP motion, in an action that accused lawyers in two firms of
acting in collusion with their client in converting and fraudulently
transferring $13 million.

The
plaintiff is Optional Capital, Inc., a Korean venture capital firm that alleges
that one of its investors, DAS Corporation, along with certain
individualsErica Kim, Christopher Kim, and Bora Leetried to wrest control of
it in 2001, and pilfered $35 million of its funds. Litigation over the funds
has been going on since 2003 when DAS sued the Kim defendants.

A 2014
Court of Appeal opinion for this district observes that the case involves an
extremely tangled thicket of legal proceedings in both state and federal court,
as well as in Switzerland.

One
Installment

Justice
Jeffrey Johnson of Div. One, said in that opinionupsetting a dismissal of the
action against DAS following the granting of an anti-SLAPP motionthat the
appeal was but one installment in Optional Capital, Inc.s attempt to recover
monies it contends were looted from its corporate coffers in 2000 and 2001.

The
latest installment is yesterdays affirmance of Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge Teresa Sanchez-Gordon grant of an anti-SLAPP motion to DASs attorneys,
in an opinion again written by Johnson. Unlike the 2014 opinion, it was not
certified for publication.

The
prevailing defendants are Akin Gump Straus Hauer & Feld LLP, an
international law firm with more than 900 attorneys (denominated in the
opinion, Akin) and Parker Shumaker Mills LLP, a 10-lawyer firm, sued along
with its principals, David Parker and William K. Mills (referred to as
Parker).

First Prong

Johnson
said in yesterdays unpublished opinion that the first prong of the anti-SLAPP
statutethat the actions complained of arose from protected activityis met,
because they all arose directly out of the litigation in which they were
respectively representing DAS.

The
plaintiff wants to hold Akin accountable for the transfer of funds from a Swiss
account to DAS. More than $15 million in allegedly stolen funds were shifted to
an account in Genevas Credit Suisse Bank in 2003 by a company owned by the
Kims; in 2010, DAS, represented by Akin, settled with the Kims, through
mediation; Optional was not involved in that settlement; the Swiss government
unfroze the funds; about $13 million went to DAS.

Optional
avers that the defendants agreed on a common plan…to fraudulently transfer
13 million dollars from the Credit Suisse Bank account to DAS and thereby
hinder, delay or defraud OPTIONAL in recovering that property.

Federal Forfeiture
Action

Parker
represented DAS as a claimant in a federal forfeiture action the U.S.
government brought based on the Kim parties looting of Optional. Optional
contends it was prejudiced by Parkers alleged delay in informing the court of
the settlement.

Johnson
wrote:

In
short, the gravamen of Plaintiffs claims against Defendants is based on
protected activity, namely Defendants representation of DAS in litigation (the
state court action and the federal forfeiture action). Accordingly, we hold
that Defendants made a prima facie showing that Plaintiffs claims arise from
Defendants constitutionally protected petition rights.

Second Prong

He
said the second prong of the anti-SLAPP statuteprobability that the defendants
would prevail on the meritsis also met, declaring:

Here,
Defendants met their burden of showing that the litigation privilege applies
because the communicative conduct at issueas established by the pleadings and
documents submitted in connection with motionswas made in judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings (i.e., the state court action, the federal forfeiture action, and
the private mediation in the state court action) by attorneys for DAS to
achieve the object of the proceedings and had some connection or logical
relation to the action.

The
case is
Optional
Capital v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
, B275274.

Attorneys
on appeal were Ralph Rogari and Mary Lee for Optional; Gordon A. Greenberg and
Charles Edward Weir of McDermott, Will & Emery, for Akin Gump, Strauss,
Hauer & Feld LLP and Raul L. Martinez, Kenneth C. Feldman and Larissa G.
Nefulda of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith for Parker Shumaker Mills LLP,
David Parker and William K. Mills.

Feldman
said yesterday:

We
are gratified that our client, Parker Mills LLP (formerly Parker Shumaker Mills
LLP) prevailed and that the Court of Appeal recognized the distinction between
litigants and the attorneys who loyally advocate and serve their interests.
Page 33 of the opinion is particularly telling wherein the Court of Appeal joined
with an earlier published case in expressing grave concern about inferring an
attorney-client conspiracy from the mere existence of an attorney-client
relationship.

 As
someone whose practice is devoted almost exclusively to defending other lawyers,
I believe that litigants should think long and hard about suing former
adversary counsel, as this case demonstrates.

 

Copyright
2017, Metropolitan News Company

Go to Source

Long-term growth for law market

In its annual Law Firm Perspective, real estate group JLL highlighted how Grand Rapids’ law market is poised for growth as outside groups are entering the market.

Two Detroit-based law firms, Honigman and Bodman, have penetrated the city’s market in 2017 with intentions for long-term growth. Honigman is located at 300 Ottawa Ave. NW, and Bodman’s office is temporarily located in Calder Plaza at 250 Monroe Ave. NW.

“The guys coming from Detroit are expanding their Michigan presence,” said Harrison West, research analyst for JLL. “Given Grand Rapids’ metro economic growth, they see it as an opportunity to expand their presence in the state.”

In addition to new players in the market, existing downtown law firms have moved or are in the process of moving into new and more efficient space. Warner Norcross and Judd announced it will move from its office at 111 Lyon St. NW into the new $63.5-million development at 150 Ottawa Ave., a year after Miller Johnson moved into the Arena Place development.

“As for the firms at home in Grand Rapids, they want to expand to maintain their presence and attract and retain talent,” West said. “We want to keep talent in the state and in our cities.”

Typical lease terms for 2017 have been 10-year terms for new development with an average of $28 base rent per square foot (psf), a five-year term for renewals with a base rent of $20 psf and 10 years for relocations with a base rent of $20 psf. No average for subleases was recorded, as the trend of law firms opting for new, higher-quality space has rendered sublease spaces obsolete for law firms.

Occupancy growth has steadily increased year-over-year, from a net absorption of over 150,000 square feet in 2014 to over 250,000 in 2016. JLL predicts net absorption to be even higher at the end of 2017. Steady occupancy will continue to push down vacancy, and rental rates are projected to increase.

For the future, JLL predicted law firm activity and absorption will slow, as many of the recently executed leases by law firms have been long-term commitments. Current construction also will lead to new space opportunities downtown.

Go to Source

After Trump’s election, more students consider law school, hoping to make a difference

The election of President Donald Trump pushed Tiffany Boguslawski over the edge.

The 19-year-old aspiring politician knew she wanted to be a lawyer, but the new president, who shares her hard-line stance on immigration and international trade, sealed the deal.

Boguslawski, a triple-major in political science, history and global affairs, is among a group of students across the political spectrum who were so moved by last November’s election that they decided to take the Law School Admissions Test, or LSAT, because they view law school as a means to making a difference.

In the past year, the number of people taking the test, which is administered nationally four times a year, has surged. In February, 21,400 people took it, up 5.4 percent from a year earlier. In June, the number of test-takers was up 19.8 percent year-over-year, to 27,606 people. And the number of people who took the test in September rose 10.7 percent from a year ago, to 37,146 people. As of Oct. 30, registrations for the Dec. 2 exam were up 21.4 percent.

In 2013, 84.5 percent of graduates fresh out of law school found jobs, a substantial decline from headier days. In 2007, nearly 92 percent of law grads nationwide found jobs. Since then, the job market is slowly reaching a new normal. In Chicago area there are 23,000 lawyers, who make on average, $134,200.

The job market is “way better than it was in the worst of the aftermath of the recession,” said James Leipold, executive director of the National Association of Law Placement. “It’s not nearly as good as it was in the glory days before the recession.”

The only real area of job growth has been at the biggest law firms, with 500 or more attorneys. “Hiring at the other (small and midsized) law firms have been flat or fewer jobs,” he said, adding,“The biggest law firms are still hiring about 1,000 fewer associates than they did before the recession.”

For some wannabe attorneys, the numbers mean keeping your eye on the prize, regardless of the political climate.

Robert Baurley, a senior and co-founder of Loyola’s Pre-Law Society, knew he wanted to be a lawyer years before Trump was elected. Baurley, 22, took the LSAT in September and plans to take it again next year to improve his score. He’s interned with an assistant district attorney in his native Pennsylvania, he said, and is working to get into his dream school, the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

As far as Baurley, is concerned, people motivated by the election of Donald Trump should reassess why they want to invest in a legal education. The current political climate Baurley said, is merely a momentary glimpse of time. “For me, I’ve known forever that I wanted to be an attorney.”

crshropshire@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @corilyns

Go to Source

The latest Trump bump? More students considering law school

The election of President Donald Trump pushed Tiffany Boguslawski over the edge.

The 19-year-old aspiring politician knew she wanted to be a lawyer, but the new president, who shares her hard-line stance on immigration and international trade, sealed the deal.

Boguslawski, a triple-major in political science, history and global affairs, is among a group of students across the political spectrum who were so moved by last November’s election that they decided to take the Law School Admissions Test, or LSAT, because they view law school as a means to making a difference.

In the past year, the number of people taking the test, which is administered nationally four times a year, has surged. In February, 21,400 people took it, up 5.4 percent from a year earlier. In June, the number of test-takers was up 19.8 percent year-over-year, to 27,606 people. And the number of people who took the test in September rose 10.7 percent from a year ago, to 37,146 people. As of Oct. 30, registrations for the Dec. 2 exam were up 21.4 percent.

In 2013, 84.5 percent of graduates fresh out of law school found jobs, a substantial decline from headier days. In 2007, nearly 92 percent of law grads nationwide found jobs. Since then, the job market is slowly reaching a new normal. In Chicago area there are 23,000 lawyers, who make on average, $134,200.

The job market is “way better than it was in the worst of the aftermath of the recession,” said James Leipold, executive director of the National Association of Law Placement. “It’s not nearly as good as it was in the glory days before the recession.”

The only real area of job growth has been at the biggest law firms, with 500 or more attorneys. “Hiring at the other (small and midsized) law firms have been flat or fewer jobs,” he said, adding,“The biggest law firms are still hiring about 1,000 fewer associates than they did before the recession.”

For some wannabe attorneys, the numbers mean keeping your eye on the prize, regardless of the political climate.

Robert Baurley, a senior and co-founder of Loyola’s Pre-Law Society, knew he wanted to be a lawyer years before Trump was elected. Baurley, 22, took the LSAT in September and plans to take it again next year to improve his score. He’s interned with an assistant district attorney in his native Pennsylvania, he said, and is working to get into his dream school, the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

As far as Baurley, is concerned, people motivated by the election of Donald Trump should reassess why they want to invest in a legal education. The current political climate Baurley said, is merely a momentary glimpse of time. “For me, I’ve known forever that I wanted to be an attorney.”

crshropshire@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @corilyns

Go to Source

Law Firm Files Suit In Behalf Of Woodmore School Secretary, Teacher In Connection With Bus Wreck

Berke, Berke & Berke filed two lawsuits in Circuit Court on behalf of teachers and staff members of Woodmore Elementary School.

The lawsuits stem from the bus tragedy that occurred on Nov. 21, 2016 in which six students were killed.

The law firms said, “The complaints allege that the teachers and staff members of Woodmore Elementary School suffered greatly as a result of the negligence of Defendants Durham School Services, L.P., National Express, LLC, and Johnthony Walker.

“When the defendants failed to provide safe transportation for the children at Woodmore Elementary, the teachers and staff who provide daily care for these children and who have close emotional ties to these children, sustained acute emotional trauma as they tried to cope with both the immediate and long term aftermath of the tragedy.

“The complaints further allege that Defendants Durham and National Express are guilty of negligently hiring Walker to drive the bus; negligently training him; negligently continuing to employ him after receiving numerous complaints; failing to properly supervise him; failing to install monitoring equipment to monitor him; failing to pay reasonable wages in order to obtain competent drivers; and failing to operate their system in a manner that would ensure the lives and safety of the children they were transporting. They also are guilty of guilty of negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct demonstrating a conscious indifference to the lives and safety of others.”

One suit is filed in the name of Alisha Bibbs, school secretary.

Another is in the name of teacher Stephanie Muhammad and her husband, Sabir Muhammad.

Go to Source

Financial firms stall settlement talks amid U.S. consumer watchdog upheaval

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The bargaining positions have shifted for financial firms in the crosshairs of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) after its director announced this week he would be leaving.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray speaks in Washington, October 17, 2014. REUTERS/Larry Downing

The departure of Richard Cordray at the end of the month gives companies being pursued by the CFPB for alleged predatory lending practices added incentive to stall settlement talks until Republican President Donald Trump puts his own appointee in place, lawyers and analysts say.

Wall Street has long-expected Trump to nominate a CFPB head who will go easier on the industry and some companies such as student loan servicer Navient (NAVI.O) and lender TCF National Bank (TCF.N) already have gone to court to fend off large fines while Cordray – renowned for imposing steep penalties- is still in place.

A Navient spokeswoman said in an email the company would focus on defending itself against the CFPB’s “unfounded and politically motivated” allegations that it misled millions of borrowers, driving up their loan repayment costs.

A TCF spokesman rejected the CFPB’s claim that the company “tricked” consumers into costly overdraft fees, saying in a statement TCF had “complied at all times with the letter and spirit” of the law.

Behind the scenes, other firms have been dragging out settlement talks – spending months wrangling over the extent of their liability, how consumers should be compensated and penalties calculated – all the while hoping for a sympathetic regime change, several lawyers working on dozens of cases told Reuters.

RELATED COVERAGE

Commentary: How Trump is making it easier to exploit consumers

These companies will be emboldened to continue to hold out for better settlement terms in the belief new leadership at the CFPB will be unlikely to take them to court if they do not play ball.

THE CFPB, created by Democratic President Barack Obama in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, is a lightning rod for criticism by Republicans, who argue that it has too much power.

“There is a more likely prospect for companies to get good settlement terms, in part because many would be willing to walk away from the negotiation table,” said Quyen Truong, a partner at law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan who was the assistant director and deputy general counsel for the CFPB until early 2016.

“There is little doubt that litigated cases ultimately would play out under new Republican leadership who would be much less inclined to pursue aggressive claims than the current CFPB leadership.”

The CFPB did not respond to a request for comment on how it would handle pending enforcement actions under a new director, but in a statement on Wednesday Cordray said he trusted new leadership would see the “value” of the agency’s efforts and “work to preserve it.”

BORDERLINE CASES

Cordray is the CFPB’s first and only director and under him it has pursued auto dealers, student lenders and credit card companies for alleged consumer abuses – forcing them to pay about $12 billion in fines and remedies, according to its own data.

Consumer advocates say the agency plays a critical role protecting consumers against financial abuse but Republican Party members, legal experts and defendants say it has repeatedly pursued cases outside its jurisdiction.

A Trump appointee likely would review all the CFPB’s pending litigation and pre-litigation enforcement actions, and could ultimately drop borderline cases or move to swiftly settle them on generous terms, lawyers and analysts said.

They highlighted the CFPB’s current actions against TCF, Navient, mortgage servicer Ocwen Financial Corp. (OCN)N>, mortgage company PHH Corp. (PHH.N) and consumer finance group World Acceptance Corp. (WRLD.O) as cases that might be quickly resolved. Shares in these companies closed up on Wednesday, when Cordray announced his departure.

“We have been and remain open to dialogue with the CFPB regarding its concerns, regardless of Mr. Cordray’s involvement with the bureau,” the TCF spokesman said. “We will continue to work through the legal process.”

OcWen, PHH Corp and World Acceptance did not respond to requests for comment.

“If it’s the kind of case where I feel that Cordray and his staff have been pushing the envelope … then, yeah, I’d want to make sure that I didn’t enter into a consent order with the bureau before there is a director in place that has taken a fresh look,” said Alan Kaplinsky, co-practice leader of the Consumer Financial Services Group at law firm Ballard Spahr.

Kaplinsky was not referring to any specific case.

Reporting by Michelle Price; Editing by Carmel Crimmins and Bill Trott

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. and Certain Officers – ACOR

NEW YORK, Nov. 17, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. (“Acorda” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:ACOR) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-08997, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Acorda securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Acorda securities between April 18, 2016, and November 14, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until January 17, 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 amount of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Acorda is a biotechnology company with a focus on the identification, development, and commercialization of therapies for neurological disorders.  On January 19, 2016, Acorda announced an agreement to acquire Biotie Therapies Corporation (“Biotie”) for approximately $363 million (the “Biotie Acquisition”).  In its press release announcing the Biotie Acquisition, Acorda advised investors, inter alia, that the Company “will obtain worldwide rights to tozadenant, an oral adenosine A2a receptor antagonist currently in Phase 3 development in Parkinson’s disease (PD).”  On April 18, 2016, Acorda acquired approximately 93% of the fully diluted capital stock of Biotie.  In September 2016, Acorda completed the Biotie Acquisition.

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) tozadenant entailed significant undisclosed safety risks; (ii) accordingly, the Company had overstated tozadenant’s approval prospects and commercial viability; (iii) for the foregoing reasons, the Company had likewise overstated the benefits of the Biotie Acquisition; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Acorda’s shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and damages.

On November 15, 2017, Acorda disclosed the deaths of several patients in the Company’s final-stage studies of tozadenant.  Acorda advised investors that it had paused new enrollment in the drug’s long-term safety studies, pending further discussion with the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

On this news, Acorda’s share price fell $11.20, or 39.72%, to close at $17.00 on November 15, 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

 

/EIN News/ —  


Go to Source