NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 30, 2016 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Signet Jewelers Ltd. (“Signet” or the “Company”) (NYSE: SIG) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-06861, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Signet securities between January 7, 2016 and June 3, 2016 both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Signet securities during the Class Period, you have until October 24, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Signet purports to be the world’s largest retailer of diamond jewelry. The Company claims to operate thousands of stores in North America, and some in the United Kingdom, through well-known brand names such as “Kay,” “Jared,” “Zales,” and “Peoples Jewelers.”

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 was experiencing difficulty ensuring the safety of customer’s jewelry while in the custody of Signet’s brands; (ii) employees at stores under at least one of Signet’s brands (Kay) were swapping customers’ stones for less valuable stones; (iii) the Company was experiencing a drop-off in customer confidence; (iv) the Company was facing increasing competitive pressures; (v) as result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial performance was being negatively impacted; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about Signet’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 25, 2016, BuzzFeed News reported on the seemingly wide-spread occurrences of diamond swapping in connection with the Company’s Kay stores. The news report recounted the stories of multiple Kay customers whose diamonds were swapped out for considerably less expensive stones while the customers’ jewelry was in the custody of Kay, typically for repair.

On May 26, 2016, the Company issued a press release announcing its first quarter fiscal year 2017 financial results. Therein, the Company disclosed that its same store sales for the period increased by only 2.4%, falling below the Company’s previously issued first quarter 2017 guidance of 3% to 4%. The Company also disclosed that it was lowering its fiscal year 2017 same store sales growth guidance from 3.0% ? 4.5% down to 2.0% ? 3.5%.

On this news, Signet’s stock price fell $11.37 per share, or 10.5%, to close at $97.00 per share on May 26, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On June 3, 2016, the Company issued a press release entitled “Signet Jewelers Issues Statement Regarding Its Longstanding Commitment to Superior Customer Service and Rigorous Product Quality Procedures.” Therein, the Company appeared to confirm the occurrence of instances of “diamond swapping” at the Company’s stores, though it denied that this was “systematic.”

On this news, Signet’s stock price fell $4.04 per share, or 4.3%, to close at $88.19 per share on June 3, 2016.

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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

BISMARCK — A ballot measure aimed at expanding the rights of North Dakota crime victims and listing them in the state constitution would cost taxpayers nearly $2 million per year, according to an estimate presented to lawmakers Thursday.

Marsy’s Law for North Dakota spokeswoman Lacee Anderson disagreed with the fiscal note, saying it wrongly assumes all crime victims will opt for notification services.

“It assumes there’s going to be more people signing up, which we haven’t seen in other states,” she said.

Retired attorney general and district judge Robert Wefald, who chairs the committee opposing Measure 3 on the Nov. 8 ballot, said it’s unnecessary and the fiscal impacts look real.

“This is going to cost more money at a time when we don’t have more money to spend,” he said.

If it’s approved and takes effect 30 days after the election, Marsy’s Law would cost more than $1.1 million for the remaining seven months of the 2015-17 biennium and nearly $4 million for the entire 2017-19 biennium, according to estimates provided by county governments, state agencies, the Supreme Court and other groups.

County governments claimed the biggest cost burden, estimated at $1.74 million every two years, noting prosecutors and their nonprofit agency partners that provide victim support already serve 7,000 victims of crimes against persons. Expanding that role to all 20,000-plus victims of property crimes, misdemeanors, municipal crimes and juvenile crimes would require adding 10 to 15 employees “or cause a significant erosion of services to those victims of serious crimes,” the fiscal note stated.

Legislative Management, the panel of 17 lawmakers that carries out certain functions of the Legislature between its biennial regular sessions, also received fiscal notes on measures that would increase tobacco taxes and legalize marijuana use for medical purposes.

State Tax Commissioner Ryan Rauschenberger said his office estimates Measure 4 would generate $141.7 million in additional revenues during the 2017-19 biennium and reduce consumption of cigarettes by 19.8 percent, liquid nicotine products by 22 percent and other tobacco products by 11 percent.

The measure, being pushed by a coalition of mostly health advocacy groups, would raise the cigarette tax from 44 cents to $2.20 per pack and increase the tax on other tobacco products from 28 percent to 56 percent of the wholesale purchase price. The state’s Community Health Trust Fund and a proposed new trust fund to support health care services for military veterans would each receive an estimated $36.6 million in fiscal year 2018 after the tax hike.

Retailers, business groups, and major tobacco firms are fighting the measure.

In response to lawmakers’ questions, Rauschenberger said the estimated drop in cigarette consumption didn’t factor in the possibility of people driving to American Indian reservations to buy smokes at a reduced tax rate. The fiscal note also didn’t consider the potential loss of sales tax revenue on other products when Minnesotans cross the border into Fargo and Grand Forks to buy cheaper tobacco.

“We did not essentially look at the ripple effect,” Rauschenberger said.

The Department of Health estimated that legalizing medical marijuana would leave unfunded cost gaps of about $154,000 in one-time costs and $2.5 million per biennium, after revenues such as registration and renewal fees are subtracted from expenses.

Deputy State Health Officer Arvy Smith said implementing Measure 5 within 30 days of passage “will be, like, impossible,” noting the department has neither the money nor the 32 full-time staff that would be needed to administer and regulate a medical marijuana program. Measure sponsors criticized a previous Health Department cost estimate as fearmongering.

The state Bureau of Criminal Investigation also estimates needing 15 additional employees to conduct background and compliance checks at a two-year cost of nearly $2.8 million.

Legislative Management approved posting the fiscal notes on the secretary of state’s website.

Theresa May is ordering sweeping changes to stop lawyers targeting British troops.

The Prime Minister said proposals would be announced within days to bring an end to legal firms ‘trying to impugn the name’ of the Armed Forces.

The blitz is expected to focus on making it no longer worthwhile for ambulance-chasing lawyers to bring ‘vexatious’ cases.

It is likely to include a crackdown on no-win, no-fee agreements and a time limit on claims.

In her first visit to a military base as PM, Mrs May said: ‘What we need to take action on… is this issue of vexatious claims. The issue of those legal firms that are trying to impugn the name of our Armed Forces.

‘We need to ensure that when the men and women of our Armed Forces go out there on our behalf, willing to sacrifice themselves for our safety and for our defence, that they have our full confidence and backing in doing that – and that’s what we will give them.’

Mrs May’s intervention will be seen as an attempt to restore faith in the military for soldiers who feel they have been ‘hung out to dry’ by commanding officers and the Government.

In recent days, serving troops have threatened legal action against the MoD and have even offered to throw themselves at the mercy of the International Criminal Court at The Hague to escape the British justice system.

Military chiefs fear that the witch-hunt of troops, many of whom have been dragged through as many as five probes for one incident a decade ago, is damaging morale.

Potential recruits are being told by former officers not to join up because of the MoD’s appetite for ‘cannibalism’. Government sources said the crackdown announced by Mrs May would focus on stopping law firms profiting from cases against the MoD and soldiers at taxpayers’ expense.

A cost limit on so-called conditional fee agreements, known as ‘no-win, no-fee’ deals, would remove the incentive for lawyers to use third-party agents to trawl for business.

A time limit on new claims would mean that, in future wars, it would not be possible to lodge cases a decade or more after the fighting is over. It could also stop new claims pouring in over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whitehall insiders said current investigations by the Iraq Historical Allegations Team were not being scrapped, and the changes were intended to stop similar cases being brought against troops in the future.

Mrs May spoke out during a visit with Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon to meet soldiers from 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment at Picton Barracks in Bulford, Wiltshire.

The PM said: ‘If there are credible allegations of criminal behaviour, of course those should be investigated but what we need to take action on is this issue of vexatious claims.’

Tory MP Johnny Mercer, a former Army captain, said: ‘It is a step in the right direction, but… until you change the fatally flawed application of EU human rights law in combat we will leave ourselves open to persecuting our troops.’

Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded forces in Afghanistan, added: ‘It is long overdue that the Prime Minister sticks up for our troops rather than sells them down the river.’