2 british firms set up operations in Mindanao

Brian Sanchez

Two companies have decided to set up shop in Mindanao, keeping their eyes on the long-term development of southern Philippines in spite of being recently subjected to martial law, a top official of the British Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines (BCCP) said.

BCCP chair Chris Nelson told reporters last week that British firm SeaGard Ltd. and BCCP member YLF Contracts and Costs Solutions had decided to start operations in Mindanao after being part of a 50-member business delegation that went to Davao City earlier this year.

While Nelson deferred from giving investment figures, he said that the swift decision of the companies to have operations in Mindanao was a signal that investor confidence remained in spite of the ongoing clash between military and terrorist elements in Marawi City.

ADVERTISEMENT

“One of the companies has already signed up for business. It’s called SeaGard. One of our members, which is YLF, an engineering consultancy, has just established an office in Davao. We are continuing to expect that others would go from that. Two is actually a good result,” he said.

SeaGard provides marine asset monitoring and protection service to telecommunications and energy sectors. On the other hand, YLF provides comprehensive quantity surveying and construction management services.

Commenting on the current developments in Mindanao, Nelson said that there would always be “some short-term issues” but businesses would still focus on long-term developments.

Although business circles here in the Philippines have been generally supportive of the declaration of martial law, Nelson said that there had not been any specific response coming from BCCP members.

“Honestly I have to say to you that there has not been a specific response. I would say rather they’re basically looking at business in the long term,” he said.


Inquirer calls for support for the victims in Marawi City

Responding to appeals for help, the Philippine Daily Inquirer is extending its relief to victims of the attacks in Marawi City

Cash donations may be deposited in the Inquirer Foundation Corp. Banco De Oro (BDO) Current Account No: 007960018860.

Inquiries may be addressed to Inquirer’s Corporate Affairs office through Connie Kalagayan at 897-4426, ckalagayan@inquirer.com.ph and Bianca Kasilag-Macahilig at 897-8808 local 352, bkasilag@inquirer.com.ph.

For donation from overseas:

Inquirer Foundation Corp account:

Inquirer Foundation Corp. Banco De Oro (BDO) Current Account No: 007960018860


Swift Code: BNORPHMM

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.

Go to Source

Japanese individuals, firms named in Panama Papers owe ¥1 billion in taxes on hidden income

Brian Sanchez

Japanese individuals and companies listed in the leaked Panama Papers owe more than ¥1 billion ($9.06 million) in taxes on undeclared income, sources close to the matter have said.

This is the first calculation by Japanese tax authorities of the amount owed on the undeclared income exposed by the documents, which detail how the rich and powerful use tax havens to hide their wealth.

The names of the individuals and companies found through the papers to owe taxes on undeclared income have not been disclosed, but no irregularities involving politicians were apparently uncovered, the sources said.

The unpaid taxes came to light through investigations after the individuals and companies were each contacted by local tax authorities. Most of the income itself was determined not to have come from illegal activities, though some irregularities were found in cases involving domestic deals, the sources said.

The Panama Papers refers to leaked internal files from the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca & Co., which specializes in shell companies. The files contained information on over 200,000 offshore entities connected to people in more than 200 countries and territories.

The Panama Papers showed individuals and companies in Japan, including major trading firms Marubeni Corp. and Itochu Corp., were listed as shareholders or directors of at least 270 entities in offshore tax havens.

Go to Source

What’s next for Comey? Maybe law, corporate work, politics

Brian Sanchez
AP Photo
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

WASHINGTON (AP) — So what’s next for James Comey?

The former FBI director boldly challenged the president who fired him, accused the Trump administration of lying and supplied material that could be used to build a case against President Donald Trump.

But after stepping away from the Capitol Hill spotlight, where he’s always seemed comfortable, the 56-year-old veteran lawman now confronts the same question long faced by Washington officials after their government service.

His dry quip at a riveting Senate hearing that he was “between opportunities” vastly understates the career prospects now available to him – not to mention potential benefits from the public’s fascination with a man who has commanded respect while drawing outrage from both political parties.

Comey was pilloried for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, yet is now seen as a critical cog in the inquiry into possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. He may be called upon to provide more detail about his interactions with Trump, which he documented in a series of memos, even as he turns attention to potential opportunities in law, corporate work or perhaps even politics.

“There’s some jobs where the controversy would not be a benefit, but that’s why I see him ending up in a place where he can be himself,” said Evan Barr, a former federal prosecutor in New York City who worked under Comey in the U.S. attorney’s office. “If he were the president of a college or an important think tank, he could pursue the issues that mean the most to him and not be worried about trying to make anyone happy.”

Comey is unlikely to play any sort of direct role in the investigation now led by special counsel Robert Mueller, his predecessor as FBI director. But he almost certainly would avail himself as a witness to Mueller in any obstruction of justice investigation centered on his firing, or to further discuss requests he received from Trump that he interpreted as directives.

Comey’s carefully crafted memos are laden with contemporaneously recorded details and verbatim quotes that could easily lay down a path for investigators, and already have been turned over to Mueller. In one note, Comey says Trump cleared the room before encouraging Comey to end an investigation into Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

Comey’s decision to share with reporters, through an intermediary, details from those conversations, and his insistence on testifying in public attest to his determination to confront the president head-on.

“I do think he is unquestionably, if this thing goes anywhere, one of the star witnesses,” said Robert Anderson, a retired FBI executive assistant director. “It really comes down to his testimony, in some avenues.”

Career options are generally plentiful for departing FBI leaders and attorneys general. Both Mueller and former Attorney General Eric Holder, for instance, took jobs with prestigious law firms after leaving public service.

But few if any have as public a profile as Comey or have generated such intense feelings.

Even Democrats who disagree with his firing remain stung by his revival of the Clinton email investigation days before the November election.

Pro-Trump Republicans who were pleased by Comey some seven months ago may now concur with the president’s assessment of Comey as a “showboat.”

And companies that do business with the government might find it risky to bring aboard someone who’s so publicly at odds with the current administration.

Comey’s name over the years has been floated in politics, though it’s not clear the former Republican – now an independent – has any interest.

Educated at William & Mary University, where he wrote a senior thesis on a 20th century theologian, Comey went on to law school at the University of Chicago. The bulk of his work has been in government, with the exception of private practice legal work in Virginia early in his career, lucrative general counsel stints at defense contractor Lockheed Martin and a Connecticut hedge fund, and a teaching job at Columbia University.

He was the U.S. attorney in Manhattan who in 2003 charged Martha Stewart with obstructing justice in a stock trade investigation. He then became deputy attorney general, the No. 2 spot at the Justice Department, where he famously faced down fellow Bush administration officials over a surveillance program authorization. In 2013, he was sworn in as FBI director, a job he’s called the honor of his life.

Friends and colleagues say the father of five reveled in his public service.

“Anyone who has ever worked with Jim as far as I know, certainly speaking for myself, holds him in incredibly high esteem,” said Sharon McCarthy, who worked for him at the U.S. attorney’s office. “You’d be working late, he’d have a Coke in his hand and he’d come in, sit down, put his feet on your desk and start talking,”

Though Comey joked at a Senate hearing one week before his May 9 firing that he perhaps regretted picking up the phone when he was recruited for the FBI job while living comfortably in Connecticut, he also was known to pepper speeches with cracks about the “soulless” private sector.

He’d urge young audiences to imagine asking themselves on their death beds who they would want to have been, saying he hoped everyone’s answer would be that they tried to help others.

His own law firm life, he’d say, was lacking despite the matching furniture, parking space and Colonial-style home that accompanied the job.

“You do not make much money working for the FBI. You will not get famous working for the FBI. But you will be rich beyond belief if you look at it from (the public service) vantage point,” he has said.

One other question for Comey regardless of his next job will be how much he chooses, either directly or through intermediaries, to respond to allegations from Trump or Republicans rallying to the president’s defense. On Friday, Trump strongly suggested Comey had lied about their encounters and accused him of being a “leaker.”

“In the days to come,” Comey friend Ben Wittes wrote on his Lawfare blog, “we’re going to see a full-court press against Comey; indeed it is already well under way.”

—

Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerA:


Go to Source

Tucson military personnel report hassles with financial firms

Brian Sanchez

More than 200 Tucson-area service members filed formal complaints in recent years claiming mistreatment by mortgage companies, debt collectors, credit rating agencies and other financial firms.

The local complaints to the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were among more than 1,200 filed statewide by military personnel and retirees since March 2015, a new report from the Arizona Public interest Research Group and Frontier Group shows.

Some service members said they were hounded relentlessly for debts they didn’t owe. Others said their credit ratings fell after lenders neglected to remove inaccurate information from their credit files.

Still others said they received no advance notice before debt collection action was taken and bank accounts were seized.

Some received financial compensation or other types of redress after filing complaints. Most cases were “closed with explanation,” which indicates a complaint was substantially resolved or explains why no further action will be taken.

Diane Brown, executive director of the Arizona Public interest Research Group, said the consumer bureau’s ability to help is threatened by a U.S. House of Representatives vote last week to cut its funding and its powers.

The bureau was established as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which set out new rules for financial institutions in the wake of the Great Recession. The House voted Thursday to roll back the changes but the Senate has yet to weigh in and could rewrite the House version.

Brown said weakening the consumer bureau would “put those in the military who protect us in financial harm’s way.”

The federal consumer agency isn’t just for military complaints, but it has an office dedicated to service members.

Military personnel receive special financial protections under federal law because their work often requires them to relocate frequently and spend long stretches overseas.

It’s illegal, for example, to foreclose on a deployed service member’s mortgage without a court order.

Unresolved financial problems can negatively affect a service member’s career.

“Delinquent debts and bad credit reports are a leading cause of revoked security clearances,” Brown said.

Go to Source

Law, corporate work, politics? What’s next for James Comey

Brian Sanchez
AP Photo
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

WASHINGTON (AP) — So what’s next for James Comey?

The former FBI director boldly challenged the president who fired him, accused the Trump administration of lying and supplied material that could be used to build a case against President Donald Trump.

But after stepping away from the Capitol Hill spotlight, where he’s always seemed comfortable, the 56-year-old veteran lawman now confronts the same question long faced by Washington officials after their government service.

His dry quip at a riveting Senate hearing that he was “between opportunities” vastly understates the career prospects now available to him – not to mention potential benefits from the public’s fascination with a man who has commanded respect while drawing outrage from both political parties.

Comey was pilloried for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, yet is now seen as a critical cog in the inquiry into possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. He may be called upon to provide more detail about his interactions with Trump even as he turns attention to potential opportunities in law, corporate work or perhaps even politics.

“There’s some jobs where the controversy would not be a benefit, but that’s why I see him ending up in a place where he can be himself,” said Evan Barr, a former federal prosecutor in New York City who worked under Comey in the U.S. attorney’s office. “If he were the president of a college or an important think tank, he could pursue the issues that mean the most to him and not be worried about trying to make anyone happy.”

Comey is unlikely to play any sort of direct role in the investigation now led by special counsel Robert Mueller, his predecessor as FBI director. But he almost certainly would avail himself as a witness to Mueller in any obstruction of justice investigation centered on his firing, or to further discuss requests he received from Trump that he interpreted as directives.

Comey’s carefully crafted memos are laden with contemporaneously recorded details and verbatim quotes that could easily lay down a path for investigators, and already have been turned over to Mueller. In one memo, Comey says Trump cleared the room before encouraging Comey to end an investigation into Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

Comey’s decision to share with reporters, through an intermediary, details from those conversations, and his insistence on testifying in public attest to his determination to confront the president head-on.

“I do think he is unquestionably, if this thing goes anywhere, one of the star witnesses,” said Robert Anderson, a retired FBI executive assistant director. “It really comes down to his testimony, in some avenues.”

Career options are generally plentiful for departing FBI leaders and attorneys general. Both Mueller and former Attorney General Eric Holder, for instance, took jobs with prestigious law firms after leaving public service.

But few if any have as public a profile as Comey or have generated such intense feelings.

Even Democrats who disagree with his firing remain stung by his revival of the Clinton email investigation days before the November election.

Republicans, pleased some seven months ago but who support Trump, may concur with the president’s assessment of Comey as a “showboat.”

Companies that do business with the government might find it risky to bring aboard someone who’s so publicly at odds with the current administration.

Comey’s name over the years has been floated in politics, though it’s not clear the former Republican – now an independent – has any interest.

Educated at William & Mary University, where he wrote his senior thesis on a 20th century theologian, Comey went on to law school at the University of Chicago. The bulk of his work has been in government, with the exception of private practice legal work in Virginia early in his career, lucrative general counsel stints at defense contractor Lockheed Martin and a Connecticut hedge fund, and a teaching job at Columbia University.

He was the U.S. attorney in Manhattan who in 2003 charged Martha Stewart with obstructing justice in a stock trade investigation. He then became deputy attorney general, the No. 2 spot at the Justice Department, where he famously faced down fellow Bush administration officials over a surveillance program authorization. In 2013, he was sworn in as FBI director, a job he’s called the honor of his life.

Friends and colleagues say the father of five reveled in his public service.

“Anyone who has ever worked with Jim as far as I know, certainly speaking for myself, holds him in incredibly high esteem,” said Sharon McCarthy, who worked for him at the U.S. attorney’s office. “You’d be working late, he’d have a Coke in his hand and he’d come in, sit down, put his feet on your desk and start talking,”

Comey joked at a Senate hearing one week before his May 9 firing that he perhaps regretted picking up the phone when he was recruited for the FBI job while living comfortably in Connecticut. But he has peppered speeches with cracks about the “soulless” private sector.

He would urge young audiences to imagine asking themselves on their death beds who they would want to have been, saying he hoped everyone’s answer would be that they tried to help others. Comey also has noted in speeches how he felt depressed at a law firm despite the matching furniture, parking space and Colonial-style home that accompanied the job.

“You do not make much money working for the FBI. You will not get famous working for the FBI. But you will be rich beyond belief if you look at it from (the public service) vantage point,” he has said.

One other question for Comey will be how much he chooses, either directly or through intermediaries, to respond to allegations from Trump or Republicans rallying to the president’s defense. On Friday, Trump strongly suggested Comey had lied about their encounters and accused him of being a “leaker.”

“In the days to come,” Comey friend Ben Wittes wrote on his Lawfare blog, “we’re going to see a full-court press against Comey; indeed it is already well under way.”

—

Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerA:


Go to Source

Four new partners among 20 promotions at one of Wales’ biggest law firms

Brian Sanchez

Four partners are among 20 promotions at one of Wales’ biggest law firm Hugh James.

The internal promotions also include to associate and senior associate roles.

After joining Hugh James as a trainee in 2007, James Gibson, 34, has been promoted to partner in the firm’s industrial disease team, after seven years of experience in pursuing complex, high profile group actions such as the Phurnacite workers group litigation.

Joining Mr Gibson, Richard Green, 34, has also been promoted to partner in the firm’s industrial disease team, where he specialises in asbestos related disease claims.

Katie McCraith, 39, has also been made partner in the firm’s medical negligence department, has over a decade’s experience in pursuing clinical negligence work particularly with cancer and misdiagnosis claims.

Since joining Hugh James as a trainee solicitor in September 2001, Nicola Sidoli, 38, has been instrumental in developing the Hugh James nursing care department, of which she is now one of two partners.

Alongside the partner promotions, seven team members have now become senior associates and nine staff have been promoted to associate level at the firm.

Next year the fast-expanding firm, which also has an office in London, will move into a new 100,000 sq ft headquarters at the currently under construction 2 Central Square office building close to Cardiff Central Railway Station.

Alun Jones, managing partner of Hugh James, said: “Having the right team is essential to providing our clients with the expert advice that we been recognised for over the years. We are extremely proud that we have been able to recognise and reward 20 outstanding legal experts through career advancements.

“Without our talented team, we would not be able to achieve our ambitious growth plans and we look forward to seeing them continue to grow at Hugh James.”

If you are looking for a new career in Wales click here.

Go to Source

Jeff Ifrah Ranked Again in Gaming Law and White Collar Litigation by Chambers USA

Brian Sanchez

Ifrah Law Receives National Recognition in Gaming & Licensing Law in the directory’s 2017 Guide.

WASHINGTON, DC – June 9, 2017 /MarketersMedia/ — Chambers USA, the leading global ranking directory of lawyers and law firms, has recognized the law firm Ifrah Law as a Recognized Practitioner in the national category of Gaming & Licensing Law. A. Jeff Ifrah, the firm’s founding partner, was again ranked in the categories of Gaming & Licensing and Litigation: White Collar Crime & Government Investigations in the directory’s 2017 Guide.

This marks the seventh year that Mr. Ifrah has been named in the category of White Collar Crime & Government Investigations (Washington, D.C.), and the third year he has been ranked nationally in the area of Gaming & Licensing Law.

“I am proud that Chambers recognizes the important place Ifrah Law holds in government investigations, white collar defense and online entertainment,” said Ifrah. “We represent many of the world’s largest iGaming companies and associations, and have been at the center of most of the important prosecutions and lawsuits in this rapidly growing industry.”

According to Chambers, “clients note that (Jeff Ifrah) is “very experienced, knowledgeable and well connected.’”
The Guide states that Ifrah “has a thriving trial practice….Clients speak highly of him, particularly his responsiveness and courtroom advocacy.”

“It is gratifying that both my own individual practice and that of my colleagues have been acknowledged by the peer review on which Chambers relies,” Ifrah continued. “Our lawyers have an in-depth understanding of the defense of government investigations, which is key to our ability to craft solutions that meet our clients’ goals.”

This is the first time that Chambers has listed the firm of Ifrah Law nationally.

The Chambers Guides have been ranking the leading law firms and lawyers since 1990. The qualities on which rankings are assessed include technical legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial astuteness, diligence and commitment. Chambers’ researchers conduct in-depth interviews with lawyers and clients, as well as information submitted by law firms, to develop a comprehensive view of the best attorneys and law firms in jurisdictions around the globe.

Ifrah Law is a Washington, D.C.-based law firm that specializes in Internet advertising, iGaming, government contracts, and healthcare. For more information, please visit www.ifrahlaw.com

Jeff Ifrah Law – Hands-on Counsel, Gloves-off Litigation: http://www.jeffifrahlaw.com

Jeff Ifrah Again Recognized by Chambers USA 2016 for Gaming Law and White Collar Litigation: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-ifrah-again-recognized-chambers-164109002.html

Internet Gaming Law Firm Owner Jeff Ifrah Launches IfrahOniGaming.com: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/internet-gaming-law-firm-owner-110000874.html

Contact Info:
Name: Jeff Ifrah
Email: contact@jeffifrahdc.com
Organization: JeffIfrahDC.com

Video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NulnyhvjT_M

Source URL: http://marketersmedia.com/jeff-ifrah-ranked-again-in-gaming-law-and-white-collar-litigation-by-chambers-usa/206573

For more information, please visit http://jeffifrahdc.com

Source: MarketersMedia

Release ID: 206573

Go to Source

How Germany’s ‘hate speech’ law will put control of free speech in private hands

Brian Sanchez

A proposed German law designed to heavily penalize social media firms for ‘hate speech’ will scare Facebook and other social media giants into suppressing content that is legal, argues Nick Wallace.

German laws criminalizing hate speech and defamation are already some of the most restrictive in Europe. But a new bill going through the Bundestag, intended to combat hate speech, will create powerful incentives for online platforms to suppress content that is not even illegal, and inhibit the development of data-driven tools that offer more sophisticated ways of fighting extremism.

The proposed law, backed by the governing CDU/CSU/SPD grand coalition, would impose fines of €50 million (a hundredfold increase on the earlier proposal of €500,000) on Internet platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, if they do not remove offending posts within 24 hours of users having flagged them.

This bill threatens algorithmic methods for combating hate speech – and for preserving free speech – by making their use legally and financially too risky. Online platforms already have content guidelines for their human moderators, which include requirements to block access to content in jurisdictions where it is clearly illegal.

Over time and with trial and error, platforms can also use algorithms to take down some prohibited content and prioritize how items are displayed in search results and news feeds, such as by favouring reputable and well-sourced content above propaganda and hate speech, which allows users to make their own informed judgements of what they read online.

This type of automation is only feasible because platforms’ minimal legal liability allows a wide margin for error, which leaves open the opportunity to gradually improve these tools.

However, the threat of liability and fines would stop this kind of innovation dead in its tracks, because platforms cannot rely on algorithms to keep them on the right side of such a law.

Moreover, it is not only algorithms that require a wide margin for error. The realms of hate speech and defamation are murky, and include vast expanses of legal grey areas that arguably incorporate the majority of potential cases. Until this law passes, anyone accused of publishing something that violates German law can at least defend their output in court, where qualified judges decide whether it is legal or illegal.

Although the threat of such litigation is enough to frighten many users out of posting anything online that may be too controversial or critical, at least some stout individuals can insist on their day in court.

But the new law would thwart even those willing to face the courts by restricting their ability to publish online in the first place. It would force companies to decide these cases, out of court and with no legal process or right of appeal for content creators. Worse, Internet platforms will face much more distorted choices than judges: either give the content the benefit of the doubt and risk the cost of a court case and a fine of €50 million, or simply remove it, and incur nothing worse than an angry customer, and maybe a tiny dip in advertising revenue.

Consider the case of German satirist Jan Böhmermann. In March 2016, Böhmermann read out a poem he had written called Schmähkritik (abusive criticism) which poked fun at the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Erdoğan demanded that German authorities prosecute Böhmermann under section 103 of the German Criminal Code, which forbade insults against representatives of foreign states. Chancellor Angela Merkel even authorized the case to go ahead, but prosecutors later dropped the charges, citing lack of evidence.

Mr Böhmermann himself made clear that he was using his poem to start a public debate about defamation law, following an earlier demand by Erdoğan that German authorities suppress a music video released by the comedy show extra 3 (which went on to produce another song one year later). Although Mr Böhmermann probably did not enjoy the spectre of prosecution or the threats from Turkish nationalists, he was ultimately very successful: Section 103 was repealed last week.

But under the new law, anyone who tries to start a similar debate about online hate speech will fail, because unlike Böhmermann’s case, theirs will never be subject to due process or political scrutiny. Any content posted online to deliberately test the limits of hate speech laws – such as an especially provocative cartoon about a religion – would not trigger a Böhmermann-style public debate about whether the law goes too far, because the online platform’s moderators would simply remove it. What business would gamble the costs of a court battle and a €50 million fine for that?

These risks are not unique to Germany. The Council of the European Union recently backed proposals for a directive that would require all EU member states to force online platforms to promptly remove videos containing hate speech. In Britain too, Conservative politicians have talked about introducing similar regulations. 

And in Austria, a court has ruled that instead of just blocking access from within Austria to posts that break Austrian law, Facebook must delete them, so that nobody anywhere else in the world can see them either. The Austrian Green Party, which brought the case, intends to appeal to the country’s highest court to impose even tougher restrictions, including a requirement to find and delete similar content.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with laws that dictate what people can say or read, it should nevertheless be the job of the courts to establish when the law has been broken. Using fines to transfer this task to private companies creates very troubling perverse incentives, and will restrict free speech even beyond the requirements of the law, at the same time as stifling technological innovations that provide new tools in the fight against online hate and extremism. Members of the Bundestag should reject this bill, and their fellow lawmakers throughout Europe should resist all similar proposals everywhere else.

Nick Wallace (@NickDelNorte) is a Brussels-based senior policy analyst with the Center for Data Innovation, a data policy think tank.

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investments in Celadon Group, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – CGI

Brian Sanchez

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 9, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Celadon Group, Inc. (“Celadon” or the “Company”) (NYSE: CGI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-03806, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Celadon securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Celadon securities between January 27, 2016 and May 1, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until June 19, 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]

Celadon, through its subsidiaries, provides long-haul, full-truckload freight service across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The Company also provides supply chain management solutions such as warehousing and dedicated fleet services, as well as freight brokerage services.

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) Celadon’s equity contribution to its joint venture with Element Financial Corp. was $68.2 million, rather than the $100 million contribution the Company reported in its public filings; (ii) the Company is being actively investigated by the SEC; (iii) Celadon had errors in previously reported consolidated financial statements related to its accounting of transactions involving dispositions and acquisitions of revenue equipment; (iv) in turn, the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Celadon’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 5, 2017, the market research website Seeking Alpha published a detailed report authored by a Prescience Point Research Group, entitled “Celadon Group: A Story That Ends At Chapter 11,” which, among other things, alleged that “CGI has used …. manipulative accounting practices to hide its insolvent condition from investors and creditors.”

On this news, Celadon’s share price fell $0.85, or 13.6%, to close at $5.40 on April 5, 2017.

On April 19, 2017, the same prominent market research group published another report entitled “FOIA Requests Reveal CGI as the Subject of an Active SEC Investigation,” which reported that the research group was denied information about Celadon sought under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) due to an ongoing SEC investigation.

On this news, Celadon’s share price fell $0.20 or 4.55%, to close at $4.20 on April 19, 2017.

On May 1, 2017, post-market, Celadon issued a Current Report filed on Form 8-K in the SEC, stating that “the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 and quarters ended September 30 and December 31, 2016, and related reports of [Celadon’s auditor], should not be relied upon.”

On this news, Celadon’s share price fell $2.20, or 55%, to close at $1.80 on May 2, 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

ReleaseID: 465460

June 9, 2017 /AccessWire/ —

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 9, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Celadon Group, Inc. (“Celadon” or the “Company”) (NYSE: CGI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-03806, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Celadon securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Celadon securities between January 27, 2016 and May 1, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until June 19, 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]

Celadon, through its subsidiaries, provides long-haul, full-truckload freight service across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The Company also provides supply chain management solutions such as warehousing and dedicated fleet services, as well as freight brokerage services.

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) Celadon’s equity contribution to its joint venture with Element Financial Corp. was $68.2 million, rather than the $100 million contribution the Company reported in its public filings; (ii) the Company is being actively investigated by the SEC; (iii) Celadon had errors in previously reported consolidated financial statements related to its accounting of transactions involving dispositions and acquisitions of revenue equipment; (iv) in turn, the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Celadon’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 5, 2017, the market research website Seeking Alpha published a detailed report authored by a Prescience Point Research Group, entitled “Celadon Group: A Story That Ends At Chapter 11,” which, among other things, alleged that “CGI has used …. manipulative accounting practices to hide its insolvent condition from investors and creditors.”

On this news, Celadon’s share price fell $0.85, or 13.6%, to close at $5.40 on April 5, 2017.

On April 19, 2017, the same prominent market research group published another report entitled “FOIA Requests Reveal CGI as the Subject of an Active SEC Investigation,” which reported that the research group was denied information about Celadon sought under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) due to an ongoing SEC investigation.

On this news, Celadon’s share price fell $0.20 or 4.55%, to close at $4.20 on April 19, 2017.

On May 1, 2017, post-market, Celadon issued a Current Report filed on Form 8-K in the SEC, stating that “the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 and quarters ended September 30 and December 31, 2016, and related reports of [Celadon’s auditor], should not be relied upon.”

On this news, Celadon’s share price fell $2.20, or 55%, to close at $1.80 on May 2, 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

ReleaseID: 465460

Source URL: http://marketersmedia.com/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investments-in-celadon-group-inc-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline-cgi/206699

Source: AccessWire

Release ID: 206699

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – DKS

Brian Sanchez

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 9, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Dick’s” or the “Company”) (NYSE: DKS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-03680, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Dick’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 Dick’s securities between March 7, 2017 and May 15, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until July 17, 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]

Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. is a sporting goods retailer that offers a broad selection of brand name sporting goods equipment, apparel, and footwear. The Company owns and operates Golf Galaxy, Inc., Field & Stream and other specialty chain stores.

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) Dick’s had overstated its adjusted EBITDA amounts; (ii) accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Dick’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 12, 2017, Dick’s issued a Current Report filed on Form 8-K/A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, reporting that a “computation error resulted in a $23.4 million overstatement of Adjusted
EBITDA amounts for both the 13 weeks and 52 weeks ended January 28, 2017.”

On this news, Dick’s share price fell $2.62 or 5.22%, over the following two trading days, to close at $47.57 on May 15, 2017.

On May 16, 2017, Dick’s announced that sales at its existing stores in the first quarter of 2016 had fallen short of forecasts and advised investors that the Company planned to scale back new store openings in 2018 and 2019.

On this news, Dick’s share price fell as much as $6.82, or 14.34%, during intraday trading on May 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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 465457

June 9, 2017 /AccessWire/ —

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 9, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Dick’s” or the “Company”) (NYSE: DKS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-03680, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Dick’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 Dick’s securities between March 7, 2017 and May 15, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until July 17, 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]

Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. is a sporting goods retailer that offers a broad selection of brand name sporting goods equipment, apparel, and footwear. The Company owns and operates Golf Galaxy, Inc., Field & Stream and other specialty chain stores.

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) Dick’s had overstated its adjusted EBITDA amounts; (ii) accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Dick’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 12, 2017, Dick’s issued a Current Report filed on Form 8-K/A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, reporting that a “computation error resulted in a $23.4 million overstatement of Adjusted
EBITDA amounts for both the 13 weeks and 52 weeks ended January 28, 2017.”

On this news, Dick’s share price fell $2.62 or 5.22%, over the following two trading days, to close at $47.57 on May 15, 2017.

On May 16, 2017, Dick’s announced that sales at its existing stores in the first quarter of 2016 had fallen short of forecasts and advised investors that the Company planned to scale back new store openings in 2018 and 2019.

On this news, Dick’s share price fell as much as $6.82, or 14.34%, during intraday trading on May 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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 465457

Source URL: http://marketersmedia.com/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-dicks-sporting-goods-inc-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline-dks/206696

Source: AccessWire

Release ID: 206696

Go to Source