Articles Posted in Class action

Published on:

General MotorsPublicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in General Motors (NYSE:GM) in connection to alleged violations of securities laws by GM. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in General Motors between February 27, 2012 and May 25, 2017.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, GM might have provided false and/or misleading material information, and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, namely: that GM installed three separate devices in more than 700,000 Duramax diesel-engine trucks so as to pass US emissions tests; that consequently the vehicles in question emit nitrogen oxide pollutants reaching as much as 500% the legal limit; and that thus the Company’s statements to the public were false and misleading during the relevant period.

According to the company’s website, General Motors is “a global automotive company united by a single purpose: to earn customers for life.” Headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, it has approximately $225,000 employees across six continents. The company’s description continues: “From electric cars to heavy-duty full-size trucks, General Motors provides a complete range of vehicles that meets the needs and expectations of drivers on a truly global scale. There are 10 distinctive automotive brands under the General Motors corporate umbrella: Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, Cadillac, Opel, Vauxhall, Holden, Baojun, Wuling, and Jiefang.”

Published on:

Rackspace Hosting

Publicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Rackspace Hosting (NYSE:RAX) in connection to alleged violations of securities laws by RAX. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in Rackspace Hosting between between November 11 2014 and August 10, 2015.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, RAX might have provided false and/or misleading material information, and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, chiefly: that Vodafone began migrating its data out of RAX’s servers, suggesting it would find a new storage provider when its contract with Rackspace concluded on April 1, 2015; that if RAX failed to renew its contract with Vodafone, it would suffer a substantial impact financially in the short term; and that consequently the company had no reasonable basis to make positive public statements about itself and its prospects for growth. When a sequence of disclosures regarding Vodafone’s non-renewal began in May 2015, RAX shares declined from a high of almost $56/share on April 27, 2015 to an August 11, 2015 close of $29.24/share, causing harm to investors.

According to the company’s website, Rackspace is a cloud services and infrastructure provider. The company’s description states: “Lots of companies will rent you access to their raw computing infrastructure. But your cloud doesn’t operate on infrastructure alone. It takes a wide variety of specialized engineering skills to architect and manage not only the infrastructure, but also the many complex tools and applications that run on top of it, including the latest data engines and ecommerce platforms. With other providers, that’s your responsibility. But we do things differently at Rackspace. We are the number one managed cloud company. Everything we offer is managed.”

Published on:

Barrick Gold CorporationPublicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE:ABX) in connection to alleged violations of securities laws by ABX. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in Barrick Gold Corporation between between February 16, 2017 and April 24, 2017.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, ABX might have provided false and/or misleading material information, and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, chiefly: that certain pipes and safety systems at the company’s Veladero mine location were not adequate to avert spills of gold-bearing solutions; that consequently the introduction of cyanide to the mine’s heap leach premises would be limited by Argentinian powers, and further that the premises would need further work; that consequently statements about the mine’s production were inflated; and that consequently company statements to the public about its business, operations and prospects were false and misleading during the relevant period.

According to the company’s website, Barrick Gold Corporation is a gold mining corporation and member of the World Gold Council. The company’s description states: “Our ultimate objective is to grow our free cash flow per share over the long term. We will do so by: maintaining and growing industry-leading margins, driven by innovation and our digital transformation; managing our portfolio and allocating capital with discipline and rigor; and leveraging our distinctive partnership culture as a competitive advantage. More than 75% of our gold production comes from the Americas region, including Argentina, Canada, Dominican Republic, Peru and the United States. The Company also has mining operations and projects in Australia, Chile, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, and Zambia. At the end of 2016, Barrick had proven and probable gold reserves of 85.9 million ounces (2.0 billion tonnes, grading 1.33 grams per tonne).”

Published on:

Hongli Clean Energy Technologies

Publicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Hongli Clean Energy Technologies (NASDAQ:CETC) in connection to alleged violations of securities laws by CETC. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in Hongli Clean Energy Technologies between October 13, 2015 and April 7, 2017.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, CETC might have provided false and/or misleading material information, and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, chiefly: that the company failed to adequately document the impairment of its assets; and that as a result of such, its statements to the public were false and misleading during the relevant period. The company disclosed on April 21, 2017 that it had discharged KSP Group as an independent auditor and announced that KSP had not taken issue with any of CETC’s accounting activities. The company disclosed later, on April 26, 2017, that KSP Group felt a disagreement existed between the two companies when the relationship was terminated.

According to the company’s website, Hongli Clean Energy Technologies is “vertically-integrated coal and coke processor that historically has used coal from both its own mines and that of third-party mines to produce basic and value-added coal products for steel manufacturers, power generators, and various industrial users.” The company’s description continues: “Most recently, Hongli has begun to produce synthetic gas during the coking process and will in 2015 begin producing syngas through its announced UCG (underground coal gasification) and CCS (carbon capture and storage). The company also expects to begin producing Compressed Natural Gas (‘CNG’) in its coking gas facility in 2015.”

Published on:

Puma Biotechnology

Publicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Puma Biotechnology (NASDAQ:PBYI) in connection to alleged violations of securities laws by PBYI. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in Puma Biotechnology between February 29, 2016 and May 4, 2017.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, PBYI might have provided false and/or misleading material information, and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, chiefly: that the company did not expect its product PB272, or neratinib, to receive FDA approval; that thus the company made over-statements regarding the prospects for PB272 approval and viability on the market; and that consequently PBYI’s statements to the public were false and misleading during the relevant period.

According to the company’s website, Puma Biotechnology is “a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the acquisition and development of novel therapeutics for the treatment of cancer.” The company’s description continues: “We focus on in-licensing innovative drug candidates that are undergoing or have already completed initial clinical testing for the treatment of various forms of cancer and then seek to further develop these drug candidates for commercial use.” Puma is based on Los Angeles, California and trades on the Nasdaq exchange under PBYI.

Published on:

Anadarko Petroleum CorporationPublicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (NYSE:APC) in connection to alleged violations of securities laws by APC. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in Anadarko Petroleum Corporation between February 17, 2016 and May 2, 2017.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, APC might have provided false and/or misleading material information, and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, chiefly: that the company had insufficient safety and maintenance procedures governing certain of its vertical wells; that as a result of these inadequacies, the wells had a heightened risk of explosion; and that thus the company’s statements to the public were misleading and materially false during the relevant period. A home explosion close to an APC well killed two people and seriously injured a third on April 17, 2017; on April 26, the company announced it would cease operating 3,000 Colorado vertical wells in response to the explosion.

After this news came to light, APC declined $2.84/share, or 4.74%, from $59.96/share on April 26 to a close of $57.12/share on April 27. The Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District announced on May 2, 2017 that a defective gas line at an APC well was connected to the explosion, with officials concluding that the gas line had not been disconnected from the well even though it was not actively being used. After this news came to light, APC fell $4.33/share, or 7.69%, from $56.28/share on May 2 to a close of $51.95/share on May 3, 2017.

Published on:

KBR Inc.Publicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in KBR Inc. (NYSE:KBR) in connection to alleged violations of securities laws by KBR. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in KBR Inc. between February 26, 2016 through April 27, 2017.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, KBR might have provided false and/or misleading material information, and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, chiefly: that the company’s subsidiaries in the United Kingdom had participated in violations of bribery and corruption laws; and that thus the company’s statements to the public were misleading and materially false during the relevant period. When the UK’s Serious Fraud Office disclosed, on April 28, 2017, that it was involved in an investigation of “the activities of KBR’s UK subsidiaries, their officers, employees and agents for suspected offences of bribery and corruption,” KBR declined in value $1.43/share, or more than 9%, to close at $14.05/share on that date.

According to the company’s website, KBR Inc. is “a global provider of differentiated professional services and technologies across the asset and program life cycle within the Government Services and Hydrocarbons sector.” The description continues: “KBR employs approximately 34,000 people worldwide (including our joint ventures), with customers in more than 80 countries, and operations in 40 countries, across three synergistic global businesses.”

Published on:

Synchronoss Technologies

Publicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Synchronoss Technologies (NASDAQ:SNCR) in connection to alleged violations of securities laws by SNCR. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in Synchronoss Technologies between May 6, 2016 through April 26, 2017.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, SNCR might have provided false and/or misleading material information, and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, chiefly: that the company was going to be unable to reach the revenue guidance it had previously given its investors; that as a result of this, the company, was going to have to update that guidance; and that as a result, SNCR’s statements to the public about its operations, prospects and business were materially false and misleading and/or had no reasonable basis during the relevant period. When the market gained access to true details of the situation, according to the lawsuit, SNCR’s investors suffered damages.

According to the company’s website, Synchronoss Technologies “provides essential mobile solutions for Service Providers and Enterprise through proven and scalable software solutions and platforms.” The company’s description continues: “Ours is a powerful, secure, and frictionless new approach to modern mobility, one that simplifies the creation and management of customer and employee experiences associated with identity, cloud, messaging, applied analytics, and secure mobility. This approach enables our clients to transform their businesses by creating growth, profitability and competitive advantage. With 130+ seminal patents, Synchronoss has one of the largest, most comprehensive technology platforms in production, widely used by the largest service providers and their 3 billion-plus mobile subscribers located around the world.”

Published on:

ImmunoCellular TherapeuticsPublicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in ImmunoCellular Therapeutics (NYSEMKT:IMUC) in connection to alleged violations of securities laws by IMUC. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in ImmunoCellular Therapeutics between May 1, 2012 and December 11, 2013.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, IMUC might have provided false and/or misleading material information, and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, chiefly: that the company had retained the stock promotion firm Lindingo Holdings, LLC for the purpose of publishing materials that would promote the company, an unlawful act that gave the impression to the market that clinical studies for ImmonuCellular’s product candidate ICT-107 were in good shape. The Securities and Exchange Commission announced enforcement actions against IMUC on April 10, 2017, alleging the company participated in stock promotion schemes.

According to the company’s website, ImmunoCellular Therapeutics is “a Los Angeles-based clinical-stage company that is developing immune-based therapies for the treatment of brain and other cancers.” The description continues: “The Company’s lead product candidate, ICT-107, is a patient-specific, dendritic cell-based immunotherapy targeting glioblastoma and is currently being studied in an international Phase 3 trial. ImmunoCellular’s pipeline also includes: ICT-121, a patient-specific, dendritic cell-based immunotherapy targeting CD133 found in recurrent glioblastoma; ICT-140, a patient-specific, dendritic cell-based immunotherapy targeting ovarian cancer; and the Stem-to-T-cell research program which engineers hematopoietic stem cells to generate cytotoxic T cells.”

Published on:

Ocwen Financial Corporation

Publicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Ocwen Financial Corporation (NYSE:OCN) in connection to alleged violations of securities laws by OCN. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in Ocwen Financial Corporation between May 11, 2015 and April 19, 2017.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, OCN might have provided false and/or misleading material information, and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, chiefly: that the company participated in substantial and systemic violations of federal consumer financial law; that as a result, OCN’s statements to the public about its operations, prospects and business were materially false and/or misleading during the relevant period. When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced on April 20, 2017 that it was suing OCN for violations of federal laws, the company’s value declined more than 53%, falling from $2.91/share to a close of $2.49/share on that day.

According to the company’s website, Ocwen Financial Corporation is “one of the largest mortgage companies in America with over 9,000 employees.” The company’s description continues: “Ocwen originates both traditional and reverse mortgage loans and specializes in helping families achieve their financial and homeownership goals. We also provide innovative automotive floorplan financing and commercial mortgage servicing solutions for business partners.”