SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – SKYS

Jun 20, 2017 (ACCESSWIRE via COMTEX) — NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 20, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. (“Sky Solar” or the “Company”)

SKYS, -12.39%

and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-04572, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) of Sky Solar: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to Sky Solar’s false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering completed on or about November 18, 2014 (the “IPO” or the “Offering”); and/or (2) on the open market between November 14, 2014 and June 12, 2017, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sky Solar securities, you have until August 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 number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., an independent power producer, develops, owns, and operates solar parks worldwide. The Company develops projects and generates and sells electricity in the downstream solar market. The Company also sells solar energy systems, including pipeline and related engineering, construction, and procurement services, and is involved in building and transferring solar parks. In addition, Sky Solar provides operating and maintenance services for solar parks and sells solar modules.

On or about November 18, 2014, Sky Solar completed its IPO, issuing 6,353,750 ADSs and raising net proceeds of approximately $46.1 million.

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) Sky Solar’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and the code’s enforcement by the Company’s Board of Directors, were inadequate to detect and/or deter misconduct by Sky Solar’s officers and directors; (ii) consequently, Sky Solar’s founder Weili Su (“Su”) was involved in undisclosed misconduct during his tenure at the Company; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Sky Solar’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 6, 2017, shortly before the markets closed, Sky Solar announced that Su would “no longer serve as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, or as director, officer, manager, legal representative or in any other management position of the Company’s subsidiaries or any other consolidated entities.”

On this news, the Company’s ADS price fell $0.02, or 1.06%, to close at $1.87 on June 7, 2017, the following trading day.

On June 13, 2017, Sky Solar revealed that the Company’s Management Committee plans to recommend that the board of directors form a committee to investigate Su’s conduct during his tenure as Sky Solar’s CEO.

Following this news, Sky’s ADSs temporarily ceased trading. When trading resumed, on June 15, 2017, Sky’s ADS price fell $0.19, or 10.35%, to close at $1.66 on June 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.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

http://www.accesswire.com/img.ashx?id=466332

Copyright 2017 ACCESSWIRE

Go to Source

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

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 20, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (“Synchronoss” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: SNCR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, and docketed under 17-cv-04147, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Synchronoss securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Synchronoss securities between December 6, 2016 and April 26, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until June 30, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Synchronoss provides mobile solutions for Service Providers and Enterprise through scalable software solutions and platforms. The Company purports to simplify the creation and management of customer and employee experiences associated with identity, cloud, messaging, applied analytics, and secure mobility.

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) Intralinks was underperforming; (ii) as such, the Company’s guidance was overstated; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Synchronoss’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 27, 2017, the Company issued a press release entitled “Synchronoss Announces Management Changes; Company Issues Preliminary First Quarter 2017 Results.” Therein, the Company disclosed that it expected “total revenue for the first quarter of 2017 to be $13 million to $14 million less than the company’s previously announced guidance” and that it expected operating margins of 8% to 10% which was also less than previously announced guidance. The Company stated that it was “disappointed with [its] Q1 performance in this first quarter following our acquisition of Intralinks.” The Company further disclosed that its Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Ronald Hovsepian, and its Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), John Frederick were leaving the Company.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $11.33 per share, or 46%, to close at $13.29 per share on April 27, 2017, 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

ReleaseID: 466316

Go to Source

Firms face ban for not passing on GST gainsThe government has threatened to cancel the registration of entities that do not pass on gains from GST to consumers. The new tax regime will get a mega launch on the night of June 30, with a special event…

NEW DELHI: The government has threatened to cancel the registration of entities that do not pass on gains from GST to consumers.

The cancellation of registration is in addition to the power to levy penalty that was prescribed under the law.

The government has repeatedly threatened to invoke anti-profiteering provisions to ensure that gains of GST by way of lower taxes and input tax credit for taxes paid at all stages are passed on to consumers. At the same time, it also wants to ensure that in cases where the levy is going up, companies do not take unfair advantage.

The GST Council has approved a three-stage process with the complaints being first verified by a standing committee of officers. If the panel finds merit, it will be sent to director general of safeguards, which will investigate the case. Based on the report, Anti-Profiteering Authority will decide on the case. From the time the complaint is lodged, the entire process has to be completed in eight months, the rules finalised by the Council said.

Tax practitioners said that cancellation of registration is too harsh, given that the rules are too open-ended. A consultant said in their current form, the provisions can be misused by rivals, who can lodge a complaint against a company, which will have to answer queries.

“The current mechanism is too broad-based and difficult to implement. Can you act against an eatery in Mahabalipuram that does not pass on the gains of input tax credit. The focus should be on sectors such as automobiles, cement, steel and real estate where malpractices are more common and some have a history of pocketing the gains,” said a tax consultant with a global firm.

The government has opted to play it safe with the antiprofiteering provisions as Malaysia saw a price surge in various segments after it introduced GST. Australia had successfully used the clause to ensure that consumer interest was protected.

The tax regime will get a mega launch on the night of June 30, with a special event planned in the historic central hall of Parliament.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley said President Pranab Mukherjee would be on the dais with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The PM’s predecessors, Manmohan Singh and HD Deve Gowda, have also been invited for the function, which will see the implementation of GST at midnight.

Former finance ministers, state chief ministers and finance ministers, who have worked on the implementation process for years, have also been invited.

On Monday, the Centre also notified several provisions of the Integrated GST Act to move towards a July 1 launch even as the Jammu & Kashmir government is trying to push for a passage of the legislation to join other states in implementing the tax reform.

Stay updated on the go with Times of India News App. Click here to download it for your device.

Go to Source

Firms face ban for not passing on GST gains

NEW DELHI: The government has threatened to cancel the registration of entities that do not pass on gains from GST to consumers.

The cancellation of registration is in addition to the power to levy penalty that was prescribed under the law.

The government has repeatedly threatened to invoke anti-profiteering provisions to ensure that gains of GST by way of lower taxes and input tax credit for taxes paid at all stages are passed on to consumers. At the same time, it also wants to ensure that in cases where the levy is going up, companies do not take unfair advantage.

The GST Council has approved a three-stage process with the complaints being first verified by a standing committee of officers. If the panel finds merit, it will be sent to director general of safeguards, which will investigate the case. Based on the report, Anti-Profiteering Authority will decide on the case. From the time the complaint is lodged, the entire process has to be completed in eight months, the rules finalised by the Council said.

Tax practitioners said that cancellation of registration is too harsh, given that the rules are too open-ended. A consultant said in their current form, the provisions can be misused by rivals, who can lodge a complaint against a company, which will have to answer queries.

“The current mechanism is too broad-based and difficult to implement. Can you act against an eatery in Mahabalipuram that does not pass on the gains of input tax credit. The focus should be on sectors such as automobiles, cement, steel and real estate where malpractices are more common and some have a history of pocketing the gains,” said a tax consultant with a global firm.

The government has opted to play it safe with the antiprofiteering provisions as Malaysia saw a price surge in various segments after it introduced GST. Australia had successfully used the clause to ensure that consumer interest was protected.

The tax regime will get a mega launch on the night of June 30, with a special event planned in the historic central hall of Parliament.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley said President Pranab Mukherjee would be on the dais with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The PM’s predecessors, Manmohan Singh and HD Deve Gowda, have also been invited for the function, which will see the implementation of GST at midnight.

Former finance ministers, state chief ministers and finance ministers, who have worked on the implementation process for years, have also been invited.

On Monday, the Centre also notified several provisions of the Integrated GST Act to move towards a July 1 launch even as the Jammu & Kashmir government is trying to push for a passage of the legislation to join other states in implementing the tax reform.

Stay updated on the go with Times of India News App. Click here to download it for your device.

Go to Source

RERA impact: Small developers look to partner larger firms to revive stalled projects

A prolonged slowdown and the implementation of the new real estate law are forcing several mid to small size residential developers to seek partnerships with larger developers to help revive their projects stalled by funds shortage and regulatory hurdles. 

Many local builders in Maharashtra, where the new Real Estate (Regulations and Development) Act (RERA) has been notified and a regulatory body has been formed, have approached large developers with deep pockets to take over their stalled projects. Some others are seeking partnerships for new projects which have not taken off. 

In April, Bengaluru-based Ozone Group revived Vijay Raheja Group’s “The Gateway” luxury project at Andheri. The project with a development potential of 120,000 sq. ft, was stuck half way through due to financial reasons. Ozone invested in the project and is currently marketing it, said a person close to the development. 

Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund, an investor in the project, confirmed that ‘The Gateway’ is currently being co-branded by Vijay Raheja and Ozone Group. A spokesperson for Ozone Group declined to comment.

Ozone Group, which is planning to ramp up its business in Mumbai, is evaluating seven to eight such projects by local builders. “After RERA comes in, there will be a lot of opportunity at the project level. Either the builder does not have the wherewithal to sell and construct, or sometimes, the projects are stuck for want of funds,” said the person mentioned above on condition of anonymity.

Navi Mumbai-based Terraform Realty Ltd is actively looking to partner with large developers to monetize some of its land assets or jointly construct five of its ongoing projects which are at various stages of development. 

“We are looking to join hands with larger groups with better execution capability. While we have the wherewithal for holding land and taking care of the land asset per se, the development will be done by someone else,” said Santosh Santholia, vice-president, Terraform Realty. The company has signed memoranda of understanding with other bigger developers to start two of its projects, he said, but did not disclose names of the builders.

Large builders like Godrej Properties Ltd, Oberoi Realty Ltd and Hiranandani Communities said many local builders are looking to sell their entire project or seeking partnerships for new ones. 

“There has certainly been higher levels of engagement with local players as compared to last year and we expect to see this phenomenon further accelerate in the near future aided by consolidation and exits happening in the market,” said Mohit Malhotra, managing director and chief executive officer (CEO) , Godrej Properties Ltd. 

Subscribe to Our Newsletter »

Earlier this year, the company entered into a development management agreement with Shivam Realty to develop a housing project at Kandivali East in Mumbai.

“We are engaging with developers across the spectrum to either partner or purchase their land parcels,” he said.

Hiranandani Communities is also looking at the joint development model for the first time given that there are rising opportunities for distressed sale in the market.

First Published: Wed, Jun 21 2017. 01 18 AM IST

Go to Source

Nevada law requires insulin firms to disclose prices and profits

The law – SB539
– also requires that suppliers provide the Department of Health and Human Services with information about the discounts they offer to third-party wholesalers.

Manufacturers are also required to justify and explain any price increases for insulin products above a certain level.

Companies that fail to disclose the information will face a $5,000 a day fine.

SB539_EN by Gareth Macdonald on Scribd



Go to Source

Finance directors will play vital role in guiding firms after Brexit

Finance directors in Yorkshire must make sure their businesses are fully prepared for the upheaval that will follow Brexit, whichever way Britain decides to leave the European Union.

FDs have a pivotal role to play in protecting the region’s public and private finances after the high-stakes divorce. Finance bosses are likely to play more of a strategic role against the backdrop of Brexit uncertainty.

Elaine Owen, senior vice president at Lockton Companies, said: “The conventional role of the FD in this Brexit transition climate has morphed into a far more strategic one as they are brought into negotiations with suppliers and customers alike.

“FDs need to be forward thinking, resilient and focused to keep businesses on track.”

The Yorkshire Finance Director Awards 2017 have been launched and will celebrate the talented individuals whose financial skills will be vital to the future fortunes of the region’s economic success.

The awards are being sponsored by accountancy and business advisory firm BDO LLP, insurance brokerage Lockton Companies, executive recruitment specialists VRS Executive, and law firm Walker Morris.

Ms Owen said: “Having been involved in the Yorkshire Finance Director Awards for the last three years the calibre of the FDs in the Yorkshire region has been extremely impressive and well up to the challenging post-Brexit landscape.”

The programme, now in its 15th year, is open to FDs working in limited companies, PLCs, private equity businesses and the public sector. The Yorkshire Post once again this year is media partner.

Cliff Sewell, managing director of VRS Executive and founder of the awards, said: “As always the role of the FD is ever changing and even becoming even more central in the strategic direction of the business.

“One key issue facing many of the region’s businesses is the challenge of Brexit and without doubt the FDs are taking a lead role in ensuring businesses are in strong positions for trading post Brexit.”

To enter or nominate, visit www.fdawards.co.uk and follow the simple instructions. The winners will be announced at an awards ceremony at The Queens hotel in Leeds on October 11.

The keynote speaker will be announced soon. Labour MP Rachel Reeves was the keynote speaker at last year’s event. The former Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions urged business and civic leaders to lobby Government to ensure Yorkshire gets the road, rail and energy networks it deserves.

At the event last year Allison Bainbridge, chief financial officer of VP Group, was named Best Finance Director of a PLC.

Jeroen Van Os was named Young Finance Director of the Year. Caroline Ackroyd, FD of Sky Betting and Gaming, Paul Bray, from Team 17, Colin Sorrar, FD of Lowell Group, Darren Fisher, from UK Coal and Daniel Woodwards, Seabrook Crisps, Paul Smith, YPO, Mike Richards, from Arran Isle and Jan Dobrucki, Wesco Aircraft, were also winners.

Awards are now in 15th year

The awards are now in their 15th year and have become established as the region’s leading awards in the finance community.

Richard Naish, who is heading the initiative from Walker Morris with Debbie Jackson, said: “Now in their 15th year, the awards have become firmly established as the region’s leading awards in the finance community.”

Paul Davies, audit partner at BDO LLP, said: “In addition to taking overall control of a company’s accounting function, today’s new breed of finance directors are being asked to provide leadership to the board’s finance and accounting strategy, as well as optimising the company’s financial perform-ance and strategic position.

“It’s important that we recognise and celebrate the value and knowledge that finance directors add to the organisations that they work for and how this all adds up for the economic performance of our region.”

Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation and Certain Officers – BAH

NEW YORK, June 19, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (“Booz Allen” or the “Company”) (NYSE:BAH) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Booz Allen’s securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Booz Allen securities between May 19, 2016 and June 15, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until August 18, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Booz Allen is an American management consulting firm.  The Company purports to provide management and technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and not-for-profit organizations in the United States and internationally.  At all relevant times, Booz Allen has derived substantially all of its revenues from services provided to the U.S. government.

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) Booz Allen engaged in improper accounting practices in its contracts with the U.S. government; (ii) consequently, the Company’s revenues derived from services provided to the U.S. government were inflated and unsustainable; (iii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny, potential criminal sanctions, and jeopardize its business relationship with the U.S. government; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Booz Allen’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 15, 2017, post-market, Booz Allen disclosed that on June 7, 2017, the Company’s subsidiary Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. “was informed that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting a civil and criminal investigation relating to certain elements of [its] cost accounting and indirect cost charging practices with the U.S. government.” 

On this news, Booz Allen’s share price fell $7.43, or 18.89%, to close at $31.90 on June 16, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

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


Go to Source

Chamber Of Commerce Files Amended Lawsuit Against Wage Equity Law

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — The Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce is not giving up its fight against a city law that would bar employers from asking for a job applicant’s wage history.

After losing a round in federal court, it’s come back with new ammunition.

Judge Mitchell Goldberg tossed out a Chamber suit against the law last month, saying it didn’t have standing to sue because the suit failed to show how the law would hurt any of its members, but gave it two weeks to amend its complaint.

The Chamber filed an amended suit on Tuesday, the day before the deadline, naming 12 companies it says would be harmed by the bill.

High on the list were two women-owned firms: Bittenbender Construction and Diversified Search, an executive search firm.

That’s significant, since the purpose of the law is to prevent the perpetuation of past wage discrimination for groups, like women, with a history of making less than their white male counterparts.

“Even businesses with exceptionally strong track-records on diversity and inclusion oppose the Ordinance because it will restrict their ability to reward talented employees,” the suit says.

The suit also names Liberty Property Trust, the Day and Zimmerman employment agency, Children’s Hospital, Comcast, Drexel University, Sandmeyer Steel, ESM Production, DocuVault records management, FS Investment, and Jacobson.

Each company has its own unique way of being harmed.

Comcast, for example, uses wage history “to translate its packages of salary, options, and benefits into comparable terms—no matter where the applicant is currently located,” the suit says. “The ordinance takes away a tool that is essential to the effective and efficient conduct of Comcast’s regional, national, and global recruitment process and its ability to recruit a diverse workforce.”

Smaller firms have different concerns.

“In order to lure talented individuals with a demonstrated track record, DocuVault routinely offers a premium on the individual’s current compensation—but it cannot offer a compelling compensation package if it does not know the individual’s starting point,” according to the suit.

The Chamber and several companies reached for comment declined to be interviewed.

City officials also said they were restricted in what they could say because the matter is in litigation.

The law’s sponsor, councilman Bill Greenlee, would allow that he is disappointed.

“We would like to see this law, that we passed unanimously, go forward and obviously there are some people who would not like it to go that way,” he said.

The law is on hold while the matter is in court. There is no timeline for the judge’s ruling on standing.

He made no ruling on the merits of the claims, which include violations of free speech, due process, and the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution.

Philadelphia was the first city to pass such a law when council voted on it in December. It was modeled on a Massachusetts law.

Since then, New York has passed a similar bill and San Francisco is considering one.

There was little opposition to the law before it passed, but what Chamber officials describe as a “slow-burning furor” afterward. Chamber officials called it “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

In a six-paragraph release when the suit was first filed, the Chamber used the term “anti-business” four times to describe both the law and the city in general.

“Philadelphia already has a reputation around the country and world for having a high cost of doing business,” it wrote. “With this Ordinance, which would have no meaningful effect on closing the wage gap, we would only reinforce our unfortunate, anti-business reputation of having a city government that tells companies how to run their businesses.”

Go to Source