Securities & Investment Fraud

Oracle Corporation Securities Class Litigation

Securities and Financial Fraud

Introduction

Securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Oracle Corporation (“Oracle” or the “Company”) (NYSE: ORCL). If you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Oracle between May 10, 2017 and March 19, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than October 9, 2018.

You may retain Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions. Recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms, Lieff Cabraser is committed to safeguarding the rights of investors and upholding the integrity of the market. We have significant experience and a successful track record of representing institutional and individual investors in securities and financial fraud litigation.

Oracle investors may choose to have Lieff Cabraser review their claim by completing the contact form below. You can also call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358 to discuss the litigation.

Background on the Oracle Securities Class Litigation

Oracle, incorporated in Delaware and with headquarters in Redwood City, California, is a multinational technology company.

The action alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading press releases, filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and statements during investor and analyst conference calls. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented the true drivers of the Company’s cloud revenue growth. In particular, Defendants falsely attributed the Company’s revenue growth in its cloud segment to a variety of factors and initiatives, including, among other things, Oracle’s “unprecedented level of automation and cost savings,” as well as the Company being “customer-focused” and “intimate partners with [its] customer.” In truth, Oracle drove sales of cloud products using threats and extortive tactics. Among other things, the Company threatened current customers with “audits” of their use of the Company’s non-cloud software licenses unless the customers agreed to shift their business to Oracle cloud programs. The use of such tactics concealed the lack of real demand for Oracle’s cloud services, making the growth unsustainable and ultimately driving away customers.

Plaintiff alleges the truth was revealed on March 19, 2018, when the Company disclosed that cloud revenue growth had stagnated, and forecasted significantly slower sales growth for its cloud business than its competitors. Specifically, the Company reported that quarterly cloud revenue rose only 32% (half of the average reported quarterly growth over the past two years), and the Company projected further declines in cloud sales growth the following quarter. On this news, Oracle’s stock price declined $4.90 per share, or nearly 9.5% per share, on March 20, 2018—the Company’s largest single-day stock drop in over five years. Following the March 19 financial disclosures, analysts and market commentators connected Oracle’s poor financial performance to its improper sales tactics. Gartner, Inc.—a leading research and advisory company—observed that Oracle had to rely on coercive practices because its cloud-based offering is not as sophisticated as others on the market.

Shareholder Contact Form


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

II. TRANSACTIONS IN TESLA SECURITIES

Number of shares of Oracle held immediately before the start of the Class Period on May 10, 2017:

From May 10, 2017 through March 19, 2018, inclusive, I made the following transactions in Oracle securities:

PURCHASES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

During the 90 days after March 19, 2018, I made the following transactions in Oracle securities:

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for 15 years. In compiling the list, the NLJ examines recent verdicts and settlements and looks for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” Law360 selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the “Top 50 Law Firms Nationwide for Litigation,” highlighting our firm’s “laser focus” and noting that Lieff Cabraser routinely finds itself “facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world.” The publication separately named our firm one of five “2017 California Powerhouses,” the only plaintiffs’ firm on the list. Best Lawyers and U.S. News named Lieff Cabraser as a “Law Firm of the Year” from 2012 through 2016, and the firm has received a number of other recent honors, awards, and recognition, including the National Law Journal’s “Elite Trial Lawyers,” Law360’s “Most Feared Plaintiffs’ Firms,” and Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 10 Plaintiffs Firms in America.”

Tesla, Inc. Securities Class Litigation

Securities and Financial Fraud

Introduction

Securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired, sold, or had open short positions or put options for the securities of Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: TSLA). If you purchased or acquired, sold, or had open short positions or put options for Tesla securities between August 7, 2018 and August 14, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than October 9, 2018.

You may retain Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions. Recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms, Lieff Cabraser is committed to safeguarding the rights of investors and upholding the integrity of the market. We have significant experience and a successful track record of representing institutional and individual investors in securities and financial fraud litigation.

Tesla investors may choose to have Lieff Cabraser review their claim by completing the contact form below. You can also call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358 to discuss the litigation.

Background on the Tesla Securities Class Litigation

Tesla, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Palo Alto, California, designs, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components.

The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants Tesla and Elon Musk, Tesla’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding a possible deal to take the Company private. The action alleges that defendants specifically failed to disclose: (1) that defendants had not secured funding for a transaction to take the Company private; (2) that Musk’s statements that the deal only required shareholder approval to proceed were false; and (3) that the status and likelihood of the deal were misrepresented to the market given that financing was not secured and the approval of the Board was still required.

On August 7, 2018, Musk stated in a tweet that he was “considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.” He then stated in another tweet that “[i]nvestor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.” On this news, the price of Tesla common stock rose $37.58, almost 11% higher than the previous closing price of $341.99 on August 6, 2018, to close at $379.57 per share on August 7, 2018, on extremely heavy trading volume.

On August 8, 2018, before markets opened, members of Tesla’s Board of Directors issued a statement revealing that the board was still evaluating the prospect of taking Tesla private, and thus confirmed that any deal was still subject to board approval. On this news, the price of Tesla common stock fell $9.23 per share, or 2.43% from the previous day’s closing price, to close at $370.34 per share on August 8, 2018, on heavy trading volume.

The same day, after markets closed, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) had asked Tesla about Musk’s announcement on August 7, 2018 and that Musk “could be in trouble if regulators develop evidence that he made a statement aimed at goosing his company’s stock price.”

On August 9, 2018, Reuters reported that Tesla’s Board of Directors was investigating whether funding was in fact “secured.” On this news, the price of Tesla’s common stock dropped $17.89 per share, or 4.83% from the previous day’s closing price, to close at $352.45 per share on August 9, 2018, on heavy trading volume.

On the morning of August 13, 2018, Musk posted a statement on Tesla’s blog confirming that funding for a deal to take Tesla was not yet secured, that proceeding on a deal with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund for funding was “subject to financial and other due diligence and their internal review process for obtaining approvals.”

The same day, after the markets closed, Musk stated in a tweet: “I’m excited to work with Silver Lake and Goldman Sachs as financial advisors… on the proposal to take Tesla private.” Then, on August 14, 2018, Bloomberg reported that neither Goldman Sachs nor Silver Lake were yet working with Musk in an official capacity. On this news the price of Tesla common stock dropped $8.77 per share, or 2.46% from a previous closing price of $356.41 on August 13, 2018, to close at $347.64 per share on August 14, 2018.

On August 15, 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC had formally subpoenaed Tesla and was seeking information from each of the Company’s directors.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

II. TRANSACTIONS IN TESLA SECURITIES

Number of shares of Tesla held immediately before the start of the Class Period on August 7, 2018:

From August 7, 2018 through August 14, 2018, inclusive, I made the following transactions in Tesla securities:

PURCHASES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

During the 90 days after August 14, 2018, I made the following transactions in Tesla securities:

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm’s “laser focus” and noting that our firm routinely finds itself “facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world.” In late 2016, Benchmark Litigation named Lieff Cabraser one of the “Top 10 Plaintiffs’ Firms in America.”

PPG Industries, Inc. Securities Class Litigation

Securities and Financial Fraud

Introduction

Securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of PPG Industries, Inc.(“PPG” or the “Company”) (NYSE: PPG). If you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of PPG between April 19, 2018 and May 10, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than July 19, 2018.

You may retain Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions. Recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms, Lieff Cabraser is committed to safeguarding the rights of investors and upholding the integrity of the market. We have significant experience and a successful track record of representing institutional and individual investors in securities and financial fraud litigation.

PPG investors may choose to have Lieff Cabraser review their claim by completing the contact form below. You can also call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358 to discuss the litigation.

Background on the PPG Securities Class Litigation

PPG, incorporated in Pennsylvania and with its principal manufacturing, distribution, and R & D centers in California, manufactures and distributes paints, coatings, and specialty materials in the United States and internationally.

On April 19, 2018, PPG issued a post-market closing press release stating that (1) the Company received a report through its internal reporting system about potential violations of its accounting policies which identified certain expenses that should have been accrued in the first quarter of 2018; and (2) that the Audit Committee of the Board was conducting an ongoing investigation. On May 10, 2018, PPG issued a second press release which detailed three additional items which would impact their first quarter results: (1) failure to record a $1.4 million amortization expense; (2) understatement of an accrued health insurance liability of $500,000; and (3) failure to record an increase in the value of inventory abroad due to inflation of raw materials. The investigation also uncovered “improper reclassifications” and improper shifting of pre-tax expenses. The investigation uncovered evidence that the improper accounting entries were directed by Mark Kelly, the Company’s former Vice President and Controller. The Company placed Kelly on administrative leave on April 25, 2018 and he was subsequently terminated on May 10, 2018.

The pending securities action alleges that PPG made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PPG’s consolidated 2017 annual and quarterly financial statements contained improper accounting entries and could no longer be relied on; (2) PPG failed to maintain adequate internal controls; and (3) as a result, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 20, 2018, the Company’s shares fell $0.77 or 0.7% to close at $108.87. On May 10, 2018, following the second press release, the Company’s shares fell $5.68 or over 5% to close at $100.43 on May 11, 2018. PPG’s investigation is ongoing and PPG has agreed to file its first quarter 2018 10-Q by November 10, 2018.

Shareholder Contact Form


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

II. TRANSACTIONS IN PPG SECURITIES

Number of shares of PPG held immediately before the start of the Class Period on April 19, 2018:

From April 19, 2018 through May 10, 2018, inclusive, I made the following transactions in PPG securities:

PURCHASES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

During the 90 days after May 10, 2018, I made the following transactions in PPG securities:

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for 15 years. In compiling the list, the NLJ examines recent verdicts and settlements and looks for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” Law360 selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the “Top 50 Law Firms Nationwide for Litigation,” highlighting our firm’s “laser focus” and noting that Lieff Cabraser routinely finds itself “facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world.” The publication separately named our firm one of five “2017 California Powerhouses,” the only plaintiffs’ firm on the list. Best Lawyers and U.S. News named Lieff Cabraser as a “Law Firm of the Year” from 2012 through 2016, and the firm has received a number of other recent honors, awards, and recognition, including the National Law Journal’s “Elite Trial Lawyers,” Law360’s “Most Feared Plaintiffs’ Firms,” and Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 10 Plaintiffs Firms in America.”

Symantec Corporation Securities Class Litigation

Securities and Financial Fraud

Introduction

Securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors in the securities of Symantec Corporation (“Symantec” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: SYMC). If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Symantec between May 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than July 16, 2018.

You may retain Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions. Recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms, Lieff Cabraser is committed to safeguarding the rights of investors and upholding the integrity of the market. We have significant experience and a successful track record of representing institutional and individual investors in securities and financial fraud litigation.

Symantec investors may choose to have Lieff Cabraser review their claim by completing the contact form below. You can also call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358 to discuss the litigation.

Background on the Symantec Securities Class Litigation

Symantec, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Mountain View, California, provides cybersecurity solutions worldwide.

The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants Symantec, its Chief Executive Officer Gregory S. Clark, and its Chief Financial Officer Nicholas R. Noviello, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Symantec’s internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak and deficient; and (2) Symantec’s “reporting of certain Non-GAAP measures including those that could impact executive compensation programs” would provoke heightened regulatory scrutiny.

On May 10, 2018, after markets closed, the Company reported that it would likely need to delay the filing of its annual report for the fiscal year ended March 30, 2018 because its Audit Committee had begun an internal investigation related to concerns raised by a former employee. On this news, the price of Symantec shares fell $9.66 per share, or 33.1% from the previous closing price of $29.18, to close at $19.52 per share on May 11, 2018, on extremely heavy trading volume.

On May 14, 2018, after markets closed, Symantec disclosed details of the investigation, which involves the “Company’s public disclosures including commentary on historical financial results, its reporting of certain Non-GAAP measures including those that could impact executive compensation programs, certain forward-looking statements, stock trading plans and retaliation.”

Shareholder Contact Form


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

II. TRANSACTIONS IN SYMANTEC SECURITIES

Number of shares of Symantec held immediately before the start of the Class Period on May 19, 2017:

From May 19, 2017 through May 10, 2018, inclusive, I made the following transactions in Symantec securities:

PURCHASES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

During the 90 days after May 10, 2018, I made the following transactions in Symantec securities:

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm’s “laser focus” and noting that our firm routinely finds itself “facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world.” In late 2016, Benchmark Litigation named Lieff Cabraser one of the “Top 10 Plaintiffs’ Firms in America.”

Prothena Corporation plc Securities Class Litigation

Securities and Financial Fraud

Introduction

Securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Prothena Corporation plc (“Prothena” or the “Company”) (NYSE: PRTA). If you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Prothena between October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than July 16, 2018.

You may retain Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions. Recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms, Lieff Cabraser is committed to safeguarding the rights of investors and upholding the integrity of the market. We have significant experience and a successful track record of representing institutional and individual investors in securities and financial fraud litigation.

Prothena investors may choose to have Lieff Cabraser review their claim by completing the contact form below. You can also call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358 to discuss the litigation.

Background on the Prothena Securities Class Litigation

Prothena, incorporated in Ireland and with U.S. headquarters in South San Francisco, California, is a development-stage biotechnology company.

The action alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the results of an ongoing clinical trial for its principal drug, NEOD001, a monoclonal antibody used to treat a rare, debilitating disease that can lead to organ failure and death. According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period Prothena cited the “best response” results from the Company’s ongoing clinical study of the NEOD001 antibody as evidence that the drug was effective, while withholding relevant trial data showing that the drug was not effective.

Plaintiff alleges that the truth began to emerge through a series of partial disclosures in 2017 and early 2018, culminating with the April 23, 2018 announcement that Prothena was ending all development of NEOD001 after data from the Phase 2b clinical trial showed that NEOD001 failed to reach either its primary or secondary endpoints, and was substantially less effective than the placebo. On this news, the Company’s share price fell 69%, or $25.34, from the previous closing price of $36.84 per share on April 20, 2018 to close at $11.50 per share on April 23, 2018, on extremely elevated trading volume.

Shareholder Contact Form


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

II. TRANSACTIONS IN PROTHENA SECURITIES

Number of shares of Prothena held immediately before the start of the Class Period on October 15, 2015:

From October 15, 2015 through April 20, 2018, inclusive, I made the following transactions in Prothena securities:

PURCHASES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

During the 90 days after April 20, 2018, I made the following transactions in Prothena securities:

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for 15 years. In compiling the list, the NLJ examines recent verdicts and settlements and looks for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” Law360 selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the “Top 50 Law Firms Nationwide for Litigation,” highlighting our firm’s “laser focus” and noting that Lieff Cabraser routinely finds itself “facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world.” The publication separately named our firm one of five “2017 California Powerhouses,” the only plaintiffs’ firm on the list. Best Lawyers and U.S. News named Lieff Cabraser as a “Law Firm of the Year” from 2012 through 2016, and the firm has received a number of other recent honors, awards, and recognition, including the National Law Journal’s “Elite Trial Lawyers,” Law360’s “Most Feared Plaintiffs’ Firms,” and Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 10 Plaintiffs Firms in America.”

Gatekeepers CII Spring 2018 Registration

Stock exchange graph background

“Where are the Gatekeepers?”

A presentation on Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at the CII Spring 2018 Conference in Washington, D.C. by Lieff Cabraser partner Bruce W. Leppla, sponsored by Lieff Cabraser.

Use the form below to register for “Where Are the Gatekeepers?”, a discussion on the role investment funds play in the effort to curtail corporate misconduct and fraud set for Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 4:30 p.m. Hosted by Lieff Cabraser.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

Requests or questions:


Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Securities and Financial Fraud

Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiffs Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado and The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System in this consolidated shareholder derivative action alleging that, since at least 2011, the Board and executive management of Wells Fargo & Company (“Wells Fargo”) knew or consciously disregarded that Wells Fargo employees were illicitly creating millions of deposit and credit card accounts for their customers, without those customers’ consent, in an attempt to drive up “cross-selling,” i.e., selling complementary Wells Fargo banking products to prospective or existing customers.

Revelations regarding the scheme, and the defendants’ knowledge or blatant disregard of it, have deeply damaged Wells Fargo’s reputation and cost it millions of dollars in regulatory fines and lost business. In May 2017, the court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint.

The case is In re Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-05541 (N.D. Cal.).

Navient Corporation Securities Class Litigation

Securities and Financial Fraud

Lieff Cabraser serves as lead counsel for the court-appointed lead plaintiff, a group of Lord Abbett funds, in Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al., No. 1:16-cv-112-GMS (D. Del.), a securities fraud class action arising under the PSLRA against Navient, certain of Navient’s senior officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain of Navient’s public debt offerings.

The consolidated actions allege that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that (i) Navient’s loan-servicing practices violated applicable federal regulations and jeopardized a contingency collection contract with the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”); (ii) the Company had an increased number of higher-risk borrowers who were not repaying their loans and Navient failed to properly account for this increased risk of loss in its reported financial results; (iii) Navient’s operating structure was inefficient as a result of its spin-off from Sallie Mae; and (iv) a significant portion of the Company’s low-rate credit facilities were at risk of being reduced or eliminated.

A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in September 2016 and the parties have since fully briefed defendants’ motion to dismiss.

BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Class Litigation

Stock price chart

Lieff Cabraser serves as lead counsel for court-appointed lead plaintiff, Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (“HMEPS”), in this securities fraud class action against BofI Holding, Inc. and certain of its senior officers. The action charges defendants with issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about BofI’s business, operations, and performance.

In September 2016, the court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in November 2016 in order to remedy the few claims that had been dismissed. In May 2017, the court denied in significant part defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint.

The case is Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02324 (S.D. Cal.). A copy of the consolidated amended complaint is available here.

If you would like more information about the litigation, or have information relevant to the lawsuit, please use the form below or contact Richard Texier of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358 or at rtexier@lchb.com.

Contact us


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Comments & questions:

We produce a free e-mail Civil Justice Newsletter three to four times a year, and distribute it to persons who have contacted us and wish to receive the newsletter.

Please sign me up for the Lieff Cabraser Civil Justice Newsletter:



About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” Best Lawyers and U.S. News named Lieff Cabraser as a “Law Firm of the Year” for 2016, and Benchmark Litigation included our firm in its 2016 “Top 10 Plaintiffs Firms” listing.

Petrobras Securities Litigation

Stock price chart

Janus Overseas Fund, et al. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras, et al., No. 1:15-cv-10086-JSR (S.D.N.Y.); Dodge & Cox Global Stock Fund, et al. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras, et al., No. 1:15-cv-10111-JSR (S.D.N.Y.).

Lieff Cabraser represented several funds managed by Janus and several funds managed by Dodge & Cox in individual securities cases arising from the massive fraud at Petrobras, a state-run semi-public energy and oil-production company headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Plaintiffs sought recovery under the federal securities laws for damages they suffered on transactions in Petrobras securities during the period December 29, 2010 through July 28, 2015 (the “Relevant Period”), due to a pervasive and long-running scheme of bribery and corruption at Petrobras.

Plaintiffs alleged that beginning around 2005 and continuing through the Relevant Period, the Company engaged in a scheme whereby contractors paid bribes to Petrobras executives and others in exchange for the award of lucrative oil and gas construction contracts. Some of the bribes were passed on to Brazilian politicians and political parties. The Company then paid the contractors inflated amounts under the contracts in order to repay them for the bribes. When the fraud was finally revealed beginning in May 2014, it sent shockwaves through the Brazilian government and economy, and caused Petrobras’s market capitalization to plummet. Authorities estimate the scheme has diverted up to, or more than, $28 billion from the Company’s coffers.

Lieff Cabraser’s cases were part of consolidated proceedings before Judge Jed S. Rakoff in the Southern District of New York. The parties reached settlements in the cases in October of 2016.