Skip to content Skip to navigation

Latest News

Telemarketers are annoying, and the TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) is confusing. It’s hard to know who is allowed to call you.

That’s why ClassAction.com created a handy flowchart to help you navigate those murky telemarketing waters. Just follow this chart to see if you might have  a TCPA case.

 

Global Power sued for securities fraud

On May 6, 2015, Global Power Equipment disclosed to investors that they should not rely on its 2014 financials as those financials underreported the true cost of sales.  It is believed that Global Power Equipment underreported the cost of raw materials such as steel.  The stock lost 33% of its value on this news. 

Etsy shareholder lawsuit

One month after Etsy’s IPO, a third party report stated that over 5% of the goods offered for sale on Etsy may infringe on copyright or trademark rights and that the owners of those rights are more aggressively enforcing them.  This case alleges that Etsy should have made more disclaimers about this potential problem during the IPO process.

FXCM Shareholder Class Action

On January 15, 2015, the Swiss National Bank announced that it was ending a policy to support the euro against the Swiss frank, causing the Swiss franc to increase almost 41% verses the euro.  That same day FXCM announced a $225 million loss due to this volatility and FXCM shareholders lost almost 90% of their value in three trading days.  This securities fraud complaint asks the question whether executives at FXCM fairly disclosed the potential risks to its business due to sudden market volatility.

Insulet Shareholder Lawsuit

On April 30, 2015 Insulet announced that its revenues for the first quarter 2015 did not meet expectations and rationalized to investors that the revenue shortfall would be realized in subsequent quarters.  This class action alleges that Insulet executives overstated revenue and revenue growth expectations for several years to artificially inflate the stock price.

Rubicon Securities fraud

This case asks a basic question:  Did Rubicon intentionally keep bad news from investors so a large shareholder (controlled by a director) could sell over $30 million in common stock at a secondary offering in March 2014 at an inflated value?

CBMG sued for securities fraud

This is yet another case where executives hired and paid third party stock promoters to increase interest in the stock and raise the stock price, but failed to disclose this paid relationship to investors.  Cellular Biomedicine’s executives are accused or not disclosing that they paid third party promoters to push the stock which created an artificial valuation.

AudioEye securities fraud

This is another software company with questionable revenue recognition practices.  AudioEye included in its revenue numbers revenue from non-cash exchanges of licenses to its software in exchange for a license in customers’ software - to the tune of $8,100,000 in revenue several for 9 months of 2014.  This revenue reversal will cascade through AudioEye’s financial statements.  This securities fraud class action then seeks to hold the company and executives liable for lack of proper financial controls.

ForceField Energy Class Action Lawsuit

This case strikes at the heart of securities fraud.  It alleges that ForceField’s management hired and paid a stock promoter to increase the company’s stock price.  It alleges that those executives even reviewed and commented on these so-called independent reports.  Yet these executives did not disclose to investors that the company was paying for those “independent” reports. Plus the complaint alleges that these same executives did not disclose the problems each has had with similar stock promotion schemes in the past.

iDreamSky securities fraud lawsuit

iDreamSky operates a Chinese mobile game platform.  Like all game platforms, one trick is to turn free users into paying users.  This class action alleges that iDreamSky mislead investors in its IPO about the company’s ability to do just that:  convert free users into paying users.

Boulder Brands lawsuit

Since at least February 2013, Boulder Brand's management had been forecasting gross margin expansion - based in part on a new product mix due to recent acquisitions.  In October, 2014 executives told investors that investor-anticipated gross margin expansion would not happen as forecasted as the company was experiencing inventory problems and not selling enough high margin products.  This lawsuit alleges that Boulder Brands should have made more accurate disclosures about its business problems prior to October, 2014.

Altisource Residential Securities Fraud

This lawsuit is the latest shoe to drop from the Ocwen mortgage fiasco. Both New York and California regulatory agencies have fined and/or suspended Owen from originating and servicing home loans in those states.  Altisource Residential is a REIT that purchases residential assets from Ocwen (generally nonperforming assets).  Altisource Residential was jointly managed by Ocwen executives.  This case alleges that those executives knew of the ongoing state investigations since 2011 and elected not to tell investors, thereby unfairly inflating the stock price.

SanDisk Securities Fraud

In its October 16, 2014 earning announcement, SanDisk led investors to believe that business was on track to meet established revenue forecasts.  Five months later, the company announced revenues would miss those projections by more than 10%.  This securities fraud case alleges that executives knew as early as the October 16, 2014 that revenue numbers would be tough to hit, yet management stood by those projections anyway, which artificially inflated the stock price.

Resort Fee Class Action

This class action continues to address the question of when it is lawful for hotels and destinations to charge those mandatory “resort fees”.  This class action alleges that two hotels in Las Vegas - the Venetian and Palazzo resorts - failed to properly disclose their resort fee until after the consumer had booked his hotel room online.  And then the disclosure was in such a form that the consumer did not find out about the fee until after his stay.

Candy Crush Class Action Lawsuit

Candy Crush is a wildly popular mobile phone game.  Players can purchase “lives” to advance further in the game (I guess).  This class action alleges that king.com (the game’s owner) has removed “lives” from players account without warning or consent, robbing those players of the “lives” which were purchased.  

 

Lumber Liquidators Class Action Lawsuit

This class action alleges that certain Lumber Liquidators hardwood flooring brands contain illegal levels of formaldehyde - a known carcinogen.  This class action seeks among other things to force Lumber Liquidators to replace the alleged contaminated flooring for all US consumers.

Nordstrom Rack Class Action

This class action challenges the pricing practices at  California Nordstrom Rack stores.  These stores purport to offer the shopper discounts on retail prices.  This class action alleges that those supposed retail prices are in fact nonexistent and are designed to make the shopper think she is getting a discount when in fact she is not.

Omnicell shareholder lawsuit

This class action alleges that Omnicell overstated its revenues in at least 2014.  The company is investigating an employee’s claim that a side letter exists between the company and at least one customer to discount (perhaps to zero) software and hardware sales.  Omnicell stock took it on the chin when the company disclosed this letter to its investors.  

In the last two weeks, over a dozen law firms have brought antitrust actions against the four largest manufacturers of disposable contact lens.   What makes this litigation so important and interesting to antitrust lawyers is that these lawsuits will test a line of antitrust cases dealing with vertical constraint on competition that up until a decade ago was well settled law.

 

This class action alleges that Walmart Vision Centers and Sam's Club Optical stores overcharge consumers.  How?  When a consumer presents an insurance card, the complaint alleges that these vision centers collect the maximum allowed under the particular insurance plan but then do not fully deduct that collected amount from the amount the consumer is charged.

Pages