Illicit or Unlawful Actions
When you cancel a service, what is the termination date? Is it the day you call, or the last day of the month you have so far paid for? The complaint for this class action claims that Optimum Cable instituted a new policy that were unlawful in two ways. It required proper notice in New York and Connecticut and it is illegal in New Jersey.
The complaint for this securities class action makes clear that the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires honest reporting of all factors that could influence a company’s performance, including criminal activity. The events in question revolve around three related companies—Eurocom, its indirect subsidiary B Communications, and B’s subsidiary Bezeq—and the actions of Shaul Elovitch, who was Chairman of the Boards of all three companies.
This securities class action lawsuit alleges that defendant VimpelCom made false and misleading statements about its business and prospects and also failed to disclose material facts concerning its payment of unlawful bribes in order to secure the company's access to Uzbekistan's telecommunications market and the fact that those actions led to probes and criminal investigations by the SEC, Dutch authorities and the U.S. Department of Justice.
This securities class action lawsuit alleges that Starz failed to disclose several material facts with regard to the business and prospects of the company during the relevant period concerning allegedly illicit practices committed by its officers. As a result, the stock traded at artificially inflated prices, eventually causing the plaintiff to suffer losses once the true facts about the company became apparent.
This securities class action alleges that TCP International Holdings failed to disclose material facts relating to the company's chairman and improper personal payments he made relating to the business, did not disclose improper relationships with he had with vendors and misled investors with regard to the company's business operations and future prospects.
This federal securities class action lawsuit is brought against BofI Holdings, Inc., a holding company for BofI Federal Bank, a provider of consumer and business banking products through the Internet in the U.S. BofI’s most significant business is making mortgages to high-net-worth individuals for the purchase of expensive properties through BofI’s Bank of Internet USA brand. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period: (i) BofI’s internal controls were frequently disregarded; (ii) Bank of Internet’s borrowers included foreign nationals who should have been off-limits under federal anti-money-laundering laws; (iii) many Bank of Internet accounts lacked required tax identification numbers; and (iv) Bank of Internet fired an internal auditor who raised the foregoing issues to management and to federal regulators.