NAPABA names Nassiri & Jung LLP 2017 APIA Law Firm of the Year

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Oct. 4, 2017) — The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) has named Nassiri & Jung LLP as its 2017 Asian Pacific American-Owned Law Firm of the Year. NAPABA created the Asian Pacific American-Owned Law Firm of the Year Award to recognize Asian Pacific American-owned law firms that have achieved prominence and distinction while maintaining the highest ethical and legal standards in the profession, and have demonstrated a strong commitment to the Asian Pacific American community. The Award also celebrates growing Asian Pacific American ownership and entrepreneurship in the legal marketplace.

The presentation of the 2017 Asian Pacific American-Owned Law Firm of the Year Award will take place at the NAPABA Anniversary Gala during the 2017 NAPABA Convention in Washington, D.C., onNov. 4, 2017.

Nassiri & Jung was founded in June 2006 by two friends — Kassra Nassiri and Charles Jung — focusing on sophisticated litigation as a small firm for both plaintiffs and defendants. On the plaintiff’s side, Nassiri & Jung has represented attorneys, executives, and classes of workers and consumers, earning several tens of millions of dollars at trial and through settlements. On the defense side, they have represented global companies such as eBay, Hitron Technologies, and Flextronics in multimillion dollar lawsuits.

Nassiri & Jung’s foundation has made it a priority to support pro bono direct legal services to their local and Asian Pacific American communities. Since 2013, they have supported public interest attorney scholarships to NAPABA and provide an annual scholarship to a public interest attorney through the Filipino Bar Association of Northern California. They also began a partnership with the Asian American Bar Association – Bay Area’s Law Foundation in 2015 and have awarded a total of $80,000 in grants to direct legal services providers. This year, the Jung Foundation donated $30,000 to the NAPABA Law Foundation to support an annual public interest scholarship.

With the spike of hate crimes and incidents in the days after the 2016 presidential election, some in their San Francisco-based community suspected that incidents against Asian Pacific American were underreported. After discussions with community members, Nassiri & Jung launched a website, www.standagainsthatred.org, to collect and report hate crimes and incidents against Asian Pacific Americans. The website gained attention after stories ran in the Huffington Post and NPR, and has since been donated to Asian Americans Advancing Justice and Advancing Justice who use it to track hate crimes nationally.

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is the national association of Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of over 50,000 attorneys and over 80 national, state, and local bar associations. Its members include solo practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal services and non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of government.

NAPABA continues to be a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian Pacific American communities. Through its national network of committees and affiliates, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of color in the legal profession.

To learn more about NAPABA, visit www.napaba.org, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter (@NAPABA).

Go to Source

It’s Everywhere: In Employment Discrimination, The Law Usually Wins, Not You

Sometimes the law is on your side in cases of employment discrimination. And sometimes it isn’t.

If you are a woman, person of color, older or disabled, chances are high that if you fought the law, the law won.

The bombshell release last week of allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein for decades of sexual harassment and discrimination against women resulted in his being fired from his position as co-chair of the Weinstein Company. The fallout was decisive.

“It is essential to our Company’s culture that all women who work for it or have any dealings with it or any of our executives are treated with respect and have no experience of harassment or discrimination,” the board reported, according to Buzzfeed.

But such swift and definitive action is not the norm. The silence around a legacy of incidents like those surrounding Hurricane Harvey Weinstein is perpetuated in most all industries.

The authors of the new book, Rights on Trial: How Workplace Discrimination Perpetuates Inequality, examined nearly 2,000 cases filed between 1988 and 2003 across the U.S.. The three authors interviewed more than 100 plaintiffs, defendants, lawyers and involved parties to find that the workplace often is not fair in cases of discrimination.

The success rate for cases of discrimination filed is dismal; only two percent of plaintiffs win at trial. That is after 19 percent of the cases were dismissed. Half or 50 percent have early settlements, 18 percent of the cases are lost on summary judgment and 8 percent of the cases have a late settlement.

But each one of those cases is a story. And in each one of of those cases, voice is a metaphor for civil justice.

“Voice is important in legal disputes,” says Laura Beth Nielsen, a co-author of the book, that literally gives voice to those involved with audio clips of the interviews on its site.

In these “workplace wars,” the stories are heartbreaking,” says Nielsen, research professor at the American Bar Foundation, and Professor of Sociology and Director of Legal Studies at Northwestern University.

Consider the case of Kristen Baker, whose case is highlighted in the book.

Baker was a 33-year-old assistant buyer in the sales division of a small, family-owned manufacturing company. A salesman “began bringing pornographic magazines and movies to work” and also charging for admission to viewing parties of those movies in the conference room at lunch time. He showed her pictures of bestiality. She filed multiple complaints to human resources, then the final straw was the salesman’s physical act of sexual harassment.

So Baker filed a discrimination case. Her employer offered her $10,000 to leave the company. Baker eventually settled for $1, a public apology and the option to keep her job.

Authors Nielsen, Robert L. Nelson and Ellen Berrey write in the book:

For over five decades, employment civil rights litigation has been seen as an instrument to achieve greater workplace opportunity—first for people of color and women, and more recently for the aged and those with disabilities. We continue to see attacks on employment civil rights litigation from critics who decry such litigation as a frivolous, costly excuse factory.

It may be difficult to believe that discrimination this blatant and offensive still occurs in American workplaces every day, but it does.

In her new book, Reset: My Fight for Inclusion and Lasting Change, Ellen Pao, who lost her $16 million gender discrimination lawsuit against the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in 2015, said it was worth it to tell her story that “started a conversation about systemic bias in Silicon Valley, giving others the courage to report their own experiences,” according to Recode.

“The sad thing is we tend to reject people who make rights claims,” says Nelson, a co-author and Director Emeritus of the American Bar Foundation, the MacCrate Research Chair in the Legal Profession at the ABF, and professor of sociology and law at Northwestern.

“We have a process where prominent stereotypes about persons of color, women, the aged and disabled” come into play, Nelson says.

A gender discrimination suit was filed recently against Winston & Strawn, adding to gender discrimination suits by former attorneys against legacy law firms Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Chadbourne & Parke, Proskauer Rose, LeClairRyan and Sedgwick, according to Above The Law.

In the most recent case brought by Constance Ramos, “as reported by Law.com, the complaint alleges Ramos was never treated as a lawyer and partner in her own right, but as ‘an appendage of a male superior’ that the firm sought to be rid of when the equity partners that Ramos joined the firm with, ultimately left Winston.”

Ramos’ experience of being excluded from meetings is similar to the experiences of Pao, who told PBS News Hour:

I was getting blocked. I wasn’t being invited to meetings. One of the women at the firm also actually mapped out investments for the women and investments for the men, and showed that the women’s investments were doing significantly better … we have more experience, we have more education, on average, and, we’re not getting promoted. And, as a group, most of the men got promoted.

Such high profile lawsuits are extremely rare. Fewer than one percent of employees who perceive they were discriminated against, file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And only 15 percent of EEOC charges lead to a lawsuit filed, and only 6 percent of those cases make it to trial.

“We see a symbolic valorization of rights in the abstract,” says co-author Ellen Berrey, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Toronto and an affiliated scholar of the American Bar Foundation.

But in real, concrete terms, there is “structural inequality,” Berrey says, recalling that one defense attorney claimed he “never saw a valid case.”

While this book covers U.S. cases, workplace discrimination is an international problem.

“According to a 2017 report by the International Labor Organization (ILO), there is no universally accepted definition of ‘harassment’ or ‘violence’ with regard to the world of work,” according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Gayle Tzemach Lemmon writes:

The absence of a global regulatory framework to address sexual violence and harassment in the workplace has left companies to define for themselves what constitutes appropriate behavior. Likewise, workplaces are left to curtail inappropriate behavior — often with women saying not enough is being done. In South Africa, an overwhelming 77 percent of women report experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace, as do 40 to 50 percent of women in the European Union. In national surveys conducted in Austria and Luxembourg, that number reaches as high as 80 percent.

In this country, to improve the system and to change policy with “the levers of power,” according to Nelson, the authors offer several suggestions.

These strategies include providing more access to legal representation; more EEOC resources and state fair employment agencies; better forms of communication with the EEOC and charging parties; access to employee information for employees on demographics and compensation; and addressing racial disparities in legal representation.

Employees telling their stories of discrimination and reporting are initial steps. The more voices, the louder the call for equity.

Pao told PBS News Hour:

And I think that this year, with all these people coming out and with the press and the public being so much more receptive to their stories and being able to take them at face value, [the kind of criticism] I went through has kind of dissipated as people see, wow, this is a huge problem.

As Jennifer Siebel Newsom, founder and CEO of The Representation Project, filmmaker of “Miss Representation” and “The Mask You Live In,” writes on HuffPost:

Let this be the end of ‘open secrets.’ Let there be no more passive waiting for the victims to reach a certain number before we actually do something about this culture of sexual harassment and assault. We need more people in power ― particularly men in power ― to break the code of silence and stand up for what is right and what is just and challenge this culture of sexual harassment and assault against women.

This post originally ran in Take The Lead.

Go to Source

Legal plays to upskill UniFiji law students

Update: 1:20PM THE School of Law (SoL) at the University of Fiji will produce legal plays annually to encourage students to learn more than just technical skills but to become accomplished performers.

Dean of SoL, Professor Shaista Shameem in a statement said
that legal education is much more that what is delivered in classrooms.

“We provide our students with a broader education assists
them to conduct themselves well not only in law firms and government
departments, but also in the community in whatever job they find themselves
after graduation,” she stated.

She further said that litigation requires confidence and a
keen appreciation of theatre.

“Producing a play annually is not about teaching the
students how to use language to best effect, or learning how to memorise. We
deliberately choose plays which allow students to explore certain legal values,
concepts and themes. We would like our students, whether it is performance and
plays or as the audience, to learn that understanding the law is more than just
acquisition of technical competence,” she added.

This new project by SoL is expected unify legal technical competence
and experience with legal values to impart legal to its students.


Go to Source

Engage local firms to study impact of new VAT law

Businesses and economists yesterday suggested that the revenue authority engage local research firms to carry out an independent study on the new VAT law’s impact on various trade and industrial sectors after it comes into effect.

“We want an independent study to know the impact. It should not favour the business community. It should not favour non-compliant firms,” Md Shafiul Islam Mohiuddin, president of the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry, told a meeting at the Institution of Diploma Engineers, Bangladesh .

The National Board of Revenue organised the meeting to exchange views with businesses and researchers on its latest bid to conduct an impact analysis on the VAT and Supplementary Duty Act 2012.

The implementation of the much-talked law, which was scheduled to come into force from July this year, was deferred by two years to July 2019 in the face of opposition from businesses.

The concern was that various sectors, particularly small businesses, would be affected owing to application of a single and uniform VAT rate while doing away with multiple rates under the present VAT Act 1991.

Businesses had been demanding that the government conduct a study before enforcing the new law, framed at the prescription of the International Monetary Fund.

The NBR said the new law was formulated as the existing one suffered from various limitations and failed to capture all the economic activities, which should be brought under the revenue system to accelerate collections and reduce dependence on external financing.

Mohiuddin said the World Bank and the IMF were donors and their prescription should be viewed keeping in mind domestic realities.

He said many meetings took place in the past. “Let us not look back at the hiccups we had had. Let us go forward together,” he said.

“We have to take the socio-economic condition and reality into cognisance,” said Sheikh Fazle Fahim, first vice-president of the FBCCI.

He said Bangladeshi research firms should conduct the study as they know the country’s reality better than their foreign counterparts.

Khondaker Golam Moazzem, research director of the Centre for Policy Dialogue, said policymakers should focus on establishing a modern VAT system, not merely emphasising on a goal of increasing revenue collection.

Citing implementation of the Goods and Services Tax by India, he said small entrepreneurs have started facing problems with it. “It is a good experience for us,” he said.

Moazzem suggested for a sector-based study involving all stakeholders.

Jamaluddin Ahmed, general secretary of the Bangladesh Economic Association, recommended involving business chambers, professional business bodies and government agencies to reach consensus on the total number of taxpaying companies, firms and individuals.

Ahsan H Mansur, executive director of the Policy Research Institute of Bangladesh, said regulatory impact assessment was conducted in advanced economies before any implementation.

“This is not done in Bangladesh. Unless we hold discussions, the NBR will have to face resistance again ahead of the implementation of the law,” he said.

Mansur recommended keeping reduced VAT rates for the service sector, where the rate of value addition was less and the extent of non-compliance was high.

“There should be automation (for the VAT system under the existing law). It should not be implemented from the perspective of the 2012 law,” he said.

NBR Chairman Md Nojibur Rahman proposed a consortium of researchers from autonomous bodies such as the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, the University of Dhaka and private research organisations and business chambers.

The NBR can form a review group and place the findings to the top policymakers, he said.

Go to Source

Taxman challenges firms capitalising on more generous R&D credit regime

The taxman is clamping down on companies looking to capitalise on a more generous research and development (R&D) tax credit regime.

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has disputed £425m in R&D credits over the last year, up from £90m in the previous 12 months, according to law firm Pinsent Masons.

The rise comes after a more generous “Research and Development Expenditure Credit Scheme” was introduced. Total R&D tax support has risen by 20 per cent to £2.9bn, according to the latest available figures.

Read more: Businesses must put more cash into commercialising top tech research

“With a rise in the number of R&D claims made by large firms, partly because of changes to how they can claim relief, HMRC is reviewing these claims more carefully,” said Pinsent Masons partner Ian Hyde.

“Despite HMRC claiming the tax claims are being investigated, it does not mean that the credits are not due. £400m is the headline figure that they estimate may not have been properly claimed. The amount of credits that HMRC will actually deny as a result of its investigations will be significantly lower.”

Read more: Here’s exactly what the £2bn boost for UK R&D entails

Go to Source

Saudis changing procurement rules to save money, boost local firms

Reuters

DUBAI, Oct 8 (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia’s government is changing the way it procures goods and services to save money, make the process fairer and aid local suppliers, the Finance ministry said on Sunday. The ministry, responsible for allocating tens of billions of dollars each year to keep the government running and build infrastructure projects, published the first draft of a new law on procurement and invited public comment until Oct. 28.

The draft proposes creating a “strategic procurement unit” which would coordinate purchases of commonly used goods across government bodies, ensuring contracts were filled at competitive prices.

A committee would be established to steer proportions of procurement budgets towards smaller companies rather than large enterprises, and towards local suppliers instead of imports.

Among other changes, smaller companies and not-for-profit organisations would not have to post security before bidding for contracts, while government bodies would have a new mechanism to reduce payments when contractors performed poorly. (Reporting by Andrew Torchia; Editing by Alison Williams)

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

Go to Source

Money paid to law firms draws scrutiny from challenger in Seattle city attorney race

Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes regularly hires outside lawyers because his in-house lawyers can’t take on every matter. Some of those contracts are awarded without public bids so that legal help can be found quickly and confidentially.

With the Nov. 7 election for city attorney drawing near, the millions of dollars Holmes has spent on outside lawyers this year caught the eye of challenger Scott Lindsay.

Because some lawyers at firms that have received contracts are supporting Holmes, Lindsay says the two-term incumbent should be investigated for possibly engaging in “pay to play” politics. Holmes forcefully rejects the notion and calls it laughable.

About two-thirds of the outside-counsel contracts the City Attorney’s Office has signed this year are with firms where at least one lawyer has donated to Holmes.

Most Read Stories

Unlimited Digital Access. $1 for 4 weeks.

Lawyers at some of the firms have hosted Holmes fundraisers.

Making his case to The Seattle Times, Lindsay said “appropriate authorities should investigate” and he noted that the city’s spending on outside lawyers grew in recent years.

“There’s something very untoward,” said the first-time candidate, who until April was a senior adviser to then-Mayor Ed Murray. “This suggests a culture of pay to play.”

In response, Holmes said his campaign has acted properly and transparently. The former bankruptcy lawyer said his office selects firms based on their track records and expertise.

Bolstering his argument: Some lawyers at firms with contracts have given to Lindsay, many lawyers at firms with no contracts have contributed to Holmes and several Holmes donors said they’ve given to his campaign simply because they believe in him.

“I’ve been a completely open book,” the 61-year-old Holmes said in an interview.

“An opponent in a political campaign saying that $250 donations can get you contracts? That says more about (Lindsay) than it does about me. It’s just laughable.”

Government watchdogs say individuals can legally support a candidate even when their employers have business with the candidate. The watchdogs say their main worry would be particular donations possibly creating an appearance of a conflict of interest.

“I would be hard-pressed to say that anything, on its face, is unlawful about someone with business before a candidate contributing,” said Wayne Barnett, executive director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission.

“This is exactly why we have campaign-finance disclosure,” he added. “Some people are going to see something nefarious, and others are going to see something benign. People can draw their own conclusions.”

Holmes is taking part in the city’s new democracy-vouchers program, so donations to him are limited to $250. Lindsay, 39, isn’t taking part, so he can accept up to $500 per donor. The incumbent has 1,480 donors, while the challenger has fewer than 500.

Friendships and fundraisers

There are differences in the examples Lindsay cites as part of a potential “pay to play” culture.

The firm Savitt Bruce & Willey has received 15 contracts since 2010, when Holmes took office, including a contract in January for work led by partner David Bruce.

Bruce and partner Jim Savitt and their wives collectively have given $1,000 to Holmes’ campaign, and the firm hosted a Holmes fundraiser Sept. 6.

Since then, Bruce has signed two additional contracts for the firm, which the City Attorney’s Office has paid more than $1.5 million in approximately the past two years.

Bruce declined to comment.

Davis Wright Tremaine has signed 14 contracts since 2010, including four this year with partner Jeff Coopersmith, earning more than $2.1 million in the past two years.

Coopersmith and other partners have collectively given $800 to Holmes’ campaign, and the firm hosted Holmes’ kickoff fundraiser April 5. Two of the firm’s contracts were signed about two weeks before.

“Most of the people who know about the candidates and care about the race are lawyers. That’s just the way it works,” Coopersmith said.

Coopersmith’s contracts have been small compared to a 2015 contract with a different Davis Wright Tremaine lawyer who hasn’t donated to Holmes.

Of the 56 contracts that Holmes’ office has signed with law firms this year, 35 have been with 13 firms where lawyers have donated to his campaign. The rest have gone to firms where no lawyers have donated to Holmes, including some not in Seattle.

Are some firms getting preferred treatment? Are some lawyers more likely to give when Holmes calls?

Several Holmes donors at firms with contracts did not return messages seeking comment. Others denied any impropriety, saying they’ve known Holmes for decades.

Brian Esler, a partner at Miller Nash Graham & Dunn, where Holmes worked before taking office, donated $50 and hosted a fundraiser for Holmes at his home last month. Records show Holmes’ office signed a $20,000 contract with the firm and Esler in January.

“I’ve known Pete for 20 years,” Esler said. “I’m surprised you would ask me why I’d support Pete Holmes. I think he’s been a great city attorney.”

Some Holmes donors — such as John Bender, a partner at Ryan Swanson & Cleveland — said they haven’t been involved in their firms’ work for the city.

“I just like the guy,” said Bender, whose firm has signed three contracts with the City Attorney’s Office this year and who has donated $150 to Holmes’ campaign. “My son used to work for him as a clerk. It has nothing to do with trying to buy work or anything like that. This sounds like someone looking for a conspiracy that doesn’t exist.”

Jeff Tilden, a Gordon Tilden Thomas Cordell partner who donated $250 to Holmes in June and who co-hosted a fundraiser for him in August, said the city attorney has been a friend since the two attended law school at the University of Virginia.

Tilden’s firm has received work from Holmes’ office, but he hasn’t been involved in any of those contracts, he said. Two partners who have worked on the contracts, Frank Cordell and Susannah Carr, have also given to Holmes and co-hosted the fundraiser.

“It’s a fair question to ask, but the financial consequences to us are virtually irrelevant,” said Tilden, whose firm has earned about $114,000 in the past two years.

Another contractor supporting Holmes is Hugh Spitzer, a University of Washington law professor and mostly-retired constitutional-law expert who said his $100 democracy-vouchers donation to Holmes had nothing to do with his contracts advising the city on taxing incomes.

Spitzer worked with other city attorneys before Holmes took office, he said.

Outside counsel costs rise

Seattle generally requires public solicitation for significant consultant contracts. But the City Attorney’s Office is exempt when it determines such a process would be legally detrimental.

That puts “extraordinary control in the hands” of the city attorney, Lindsay said. If he wins on Nov. 7 and ends up running for re-election, Lindsay won’t accept donations from firms with contracts, he said.

Like Holmes, the challenger has accepted contributions from lawyers at firms that have recently received city contracts, including K&L Gates, where he used to work.

“It would be impossible to mount a campaign for this office … without contributions from people in the profession,” Holmes said. “It’s all within the rules, all fully disclosed.”

Only a small percentage of the $130,000 that Holmes’ campaign has raised has come from lawyers at firms with recent contracts. Lindsay, who’s raised about $119,000, says Holmes’ donations are concerning partly because of how much the City Attorney’s Office spends on outside lawyers.

In 2010, the office spent nearly $3 million on outside lawyers, many of whom charge much more than in-house lawyers are paid.

That dipped to $1.6 million in 2014 but rose to $4.4 million in 2015 and $7.3 million last year. The office has spent about $4 million so far this year, it says.

Lindsay has criticized the spending, citing a recent lawsuit by three police officers in which the city lost a $2.8 million jury award.

In other cases, the city’s contract lawyers have prevailed. Holmes contends his office’s spending on contract lawyers is largely dictated by forces outside his control. He said he drives a hard bargain on behalf of taxpayers, seeking discounts.

“We’ve seen more activist legislation coming from the City Council and the mayor’s office, not to mention the voters,” Holmes said, pointing to a new measure allowing Uber drivers to unionize. “We have no choice but to defend the laws of the city.”

Greg Narver, the office’s civil-division chief, said he doesn’t consult with Holmes on run-of-the-mill contracts. Firms get repeat work based on performance, he said.

“I don’t pay any attention to who’s contributed,” Narver said.

Narver said he would prefer the city budget for more in-house counsel. “I would love never to have to spend on outside lawyers,” he said.

Watchdogs’ view

Seattle voters approved a law in 2015 banning contributions by major contractors.

There are questions about the extent to which the law covers owners and top executives, but candidates generally can still accept donations from employees of contractors.

Even when campaign contributions are legal, elected officials should take care to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, good-government advocates say.

“Our general stance is that individuals retain the right to participate in local races, including by making contributions, even when their employers are involved in business with candidates,” said Elise Orlick, director of WashPIRG.

“However, we do think the appearance of a conflict of interest is a legitimate concern,” she added, after hearing of the Holmes fundraisers held by some firms.

J. Patrick Dobel, a UW politics professor who once chaired Seattle’s elections commission, said donations close in time to contracts being signed may deserve scrutiny. The aim is to “maintain the perceived legitimacy of the economy of government,” he said.

Lawyers at firms with city contracts are among the people Holmes has asked for donations, he said. But Holmes said he hasn’t targeted such lawyers, and he attributed the timing of some contributions to coincidence.

“We hire a lot of lawyers, and I call a lot of lawyers,” Holmes said. “Do I use a list of people contracting with the city? Absolutely not.”

Go to Source

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

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / October 7, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier Communications Corporation (“Frontier” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: FTR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, and docketed under 17-cv-01672, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Frontier securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Frontier securities between April 1, 2016, and May 2, 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]

Frontier provides communications services in the United States, including broadband, video, and voice services. According to the Company, it acquired the wireline operations of Verizon Communications, Inc. (the “Verizon Acquisition”) in California, Texas and Florida on April 1, 2016, for a purchase price of $10.5 billion in cash and assumed debt. Throughout the Class Period defendants allegedly failed to disclose the underperformance of the Verizon 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) the Company acquired a substantial number of non-paying accounts as part of its acquisition of the wireline operations of Verizon Communications, Inc.; (ii) as a result, the Company would be required to increase its reserves, and write-off amounts from accounts receivable associated with the non-paying accounts; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Frontier’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 27, 2017, the Company disclosed a net loss of $80 million for the fourth quarter of 2016, and stated that its results were impacted by the “resolution of nonpaying acquired CTF accounts.” Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) Daniel J. McCarthy (“McCarthy”) elaborated, stating: “Results for the fourth quarter were impacted by our intensified efforts to resolve acquired accounts in California, Texas and Florida that we have determined to be non-paying.”

On that same day, February 27, 2017, the Company held a conference call to discuss its financial results. On the call, Defendant McCarthy stated that the Company had been working through the account cleanup process since July 20, 2016, that the Company began disconnecting non-paying accounts at the end of August 2016, and that the disconnects continued through the first quarter of 2017. McCarthy further stated that the Company began to reserve aging accounts in accordance with in normal policies in Q2 2016 and then increased its reserves. Finally. McCarthy stated that the Company began permanent disconnects and receivable write-offs in the third quarter of 2016, and continued them in the fourth quarter of 2016.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.36 per share, almost 11%, to close at $2.93 per share on February 28, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On May 2, 2017, the Company reported a first quarter 2017 net loss of $75 million and a year-over-year first quarter revenue decline of $53 million. On the same day, the Company held a conference call to discuss its first quarter financial results. On the call, Chief Financial Officer Ralph Perley McBride (“McBride”) stated that approximately $16 million of the sequential revenue decline was a result of cleanup of CTF non-paying accounts and the automation of legacy non-pay disconnects. Specifically, he stated that “[Ole CTF account cleanup reduced Q1 revenue by $11 million, and the one-time impact related to automating the non-pay disconnect process for the legacy properties, reduced Q1 revenue by $5 million.]”

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.32 per share, or more than 16%, to close at $1.61 per share on May 3, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 477274

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / October 7, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier Communications Corporation (“Frontier” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: FTR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, and docketed under 17-cv-01672, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Frontier securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Frontier securities between April 1, 2016, and May 2, 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]

Frontier provides communications services in the United States, including broadband, video, and voice services. According to the Company, it acquired the wireline operations of Verizon Communications, Inc. (the “Verizon Acquisition”) in California, Texas and Florida on April 1, 2016, for a purchase price of $10.5 billion in cash and assumed debt. Throughout the Class Period defendants allegedly failed to disclose the underperformance of the Verizon 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) the Company acquired a substantial number of non-paying accounts as part of its acquisition of the wireline operations of Verizon Communications, Inc.; (ii) as a result, the Company would be required to increase its reserves, and write-off amounts from accounts receivable associated with the non-paying accounts; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Frontier’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 27, 2017, the Company disclosed a net loss of $80 million for the fourth quarter of 2016, and stated that its results were impacted by the “resolution of nonpaying acquired CTF accounts.” Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) Daniel J. McCarthy (“McCarthy”) elaborated, stating: “Results for the fourth quarter were impacted by our intensified efforts to resolve acquired accounts in California, Texas and Florida that we have determined to be non-paying.”

On that same day, February 27, 2017, the Company held a conference call to discuss its financial results. On the call, Defendant McCarthy stated that the Company had been working through the account cleanup process since July 20, 2016, that the Company began disconnecting non-paying accounts at the end of August 2016, and that the disconnects continued through the first quarter of 2017. McCarthy further stated that the Company began to reserve aging accounts in accordance with in normal policies in Q2 2016 and then increased its reserves. Finally. McCarthy stated that the Company began permanent disconnects and receivable write-offs in the third quarter of 2016, and continued them in the fourth quarter of 2016.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.36 per share, almost 11%, to close at $2.93 per share on February 28, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On May 2, 2017, the Company reported a first quarter 2017 net loss of $75 million and a year-over-year first quarter revenue decline of $53 million. On the same day, the Company held a conference call to discuss its first quarter financial results. On the call, Chief Financial Officer Ralph Perley McBride (“McBride”) stated that approximately $16 million of the sequential revenue decline was a result of cleanup of CTF non-paying accounts and the automation of legacy non-pay disconnects. Specifically, he stated that “[Ole CTF account cleanup reduced Q1 revenue by $11 million, and the one-time impact related to automating the non-pay disconnect process for the legacy properties, reduced Q1 revenue by $5 million.]”

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.32 per share, or more than 16%, to close at $1.61 per share on May 3, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 477274

Source URL: https://marketersmedia.com/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-frontier-communications-corporation-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline-ftr/246917

Source: AccessWire

Release ID: 246917

Go to Source

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

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / October 7, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. (“Ubiquiti” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: UBNT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-07524, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ubiquiti securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ubiquiti securities between September 28, 2012, and September 18, 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]

Ubiquiti develops technology platforms for high-capacity distributed Internet access, unified information technology, and next-generation consumer electronics for home and personal use. The Company does not employ a traditional sales force. Instead, it purports to “drive[] brand awareness largely through the company’s user community where customers can interface directly with R&D, marketing, and support.” The Company calls this user community the “Ubiquiti Community.”

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the number of the Company’s purported user community was drastically overstated; (ii) Ubiquiti had exaggerated its publicly reported accounts receivable; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Ubiquiti’s publicly disseminated financial statements were materially false and misleading.

On September 18, 2017, Citron Research (“Citron”) issued a report entitled “Citron Exposes Ubiquiti Networks,” (the “Citron Report”) in which Citron detailed a series of “alarming red flags,” indicating that the Company has been deceiving investors and is engaged in “corporate fraud,” including, among other things, that the Company has misrepresented the size of its purported “Ubiquiti Community”, as well as its levels of accounts receivable, among other things.

On this news, Ubiquiti’s share price fell nearly 8% to close at $50.62 on September 18, 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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 477275

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / October 7, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. (“Ubiquiti” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: UBNT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-07524, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ubiquiti securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ubiquiti securities between September 28, 2012, and September 18, 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]

Ubiquiti develops technology platforms for high-capacity distributed Internet access, unified information technology, and next-generation consumer electronics for home and personal use. The Company does not employ a traditional sales force. Instead, it purports to “drive[] brand awareness largely through the company’s user community where customers can interface directly with R&D, marketing, and support.” The Company calls this user community the “Ubiquiti Community.”

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the number of the Company’s purported user community was drastically overstated; (ii) Ubiquiti had exaggerated its publicly reported accounts receivable; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Ubiquiti’s publicly disseminated financial statements were materially false and misleading.

On September 18, 2017, Citron Research (“Citron”) issued a report entitled “Citron Exposes Ubiquiti Networks,” (the “Citron Report”) in which Citron detailed a series of “alarming red flags,” indicating that the Company has been deceiving investors and is engaged in “corporate fraud,” including, among other things, that the Company has misrepresented the size of its purported “Ubiquiti Community”, as well as its levels of accounts receivable, among other things.

On this news, Ubiquiti’s share price fell nearly 8% to close at $50.62 on September 18, 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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 477275

Source URL: https://marketersmedia.com/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-ubiquiti-networks-inc-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline-ubnt/246916

Source: AccessWire

Release ID: 246916

Go to Source