‍Corporate fraud has become an increasingly prominent issue in today's business world. It is estimated corporate fraud costs investors $330 billion dollars annually.  Companies that are willing to put profits before ethical considerations are often willing to go to great lengths to conceal illegal activities, even if it means engaging in fraud. Unfortunately, this type of behavior has become increasingly common, and the consequences for companies caught engaging in it can be severe. Corporate fraud can take many forms, from accounting fraud and false statements to bribery and money laundering. It can have devastating effects on the companies involved and the people affected by their actions. In this article, we will explore the reality of corporate fraud, how it is committed, and how it can be prevented. By understanding the dark side of profits, companies can better protect themselves and their stakeholders from the devastating effects of corporate fraud and exploitation.

• Accounting fraud - This type of fraud involves manipulating financial records, usually by overstating company earnings or understating expenses. Accounting fraud is a common way for companies to inflate their stock price or hide financial difficulties.

• Financial statement fraud - This type of fraud involves misreporting a company's assets and liabilities on its balance sheet. Financial statement fraud is particularly dangerous because it can take years to be discovered and can have far-reaching consequences for the company's shareholders. Fraudulent financial reporting often results in a company's stock being delisted from exchanges or being delisted altogether.

 

• Asset misappropriation - This occurs when a company's assets are illegally converted for personal gain. An example would be an employee who uses his position of employment to cause a payment for some inappropriate purpose

 

• False statements - This type of fraud occurs when a company deliberately misrepresents an event or a material fact. False statements often involve senior corporate executives reporting that a company is in better financial health than it is. False statements can result in hefty fines, settlements, and even criminal charges. An example of false statements occurred in 2001, when auditors at Arthur Andersen falsely assured investors that Enron was a healthy company. Later, auditors discovered that Enron had been inflating its stock price by hiding debt and falsely reporting healthy earnings.

 

• Bribery - This type of fraud involves offering or accepting items of value (e.g. cash, gifts, stocks, etc.) in exchange for a business advantage. Bribery can be difficult to uncover because it can be easy to hide if there is no paper trail. Bribery does not have to be related to obtaining contracts or gaining an unfair advantage during the bidding process. An example of bribery occurred in the 1990s when executives at Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) offered bribes to the California State Legislature in exchange for the ability to increase electricity rates. PG&E's actions allowed it to generate $100 million in additional profits, but they also resulted in several deaths due to wildfires caused by insufficiently maintained electrical grids.

​

• Money laundering - This type of fraud involves disguising the source of illegally obtained funds by passing them through legitimate channels. Money laundering can be difficult to discover because it usually involves transactions between unrelated parties. Money laundering is often related to drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime. An example of money laundering occurred in 1996 when the Bank of New England was caught disguising cash from Colombian drug cartels as loans to a Caribbean casino. To avoid detection, the bank moved the money through an account linked to a Massachusetts insurance company. Another example of money laundering occurred in the early 2000s when the Russian government used banks in Cyprus and Latvia to launder billions of dollars in stolen funds. The government was eventually caught when it was discovered that the Russian Central Bank was printing massive quantities of high-denomination bank notes. A final example of money laundering occurred in 2012, when HSBC was discovered laundering billions of dollars in drug trafficking proceeds for Mexican and Colombian cartels. The bank avoided detection by setting a minimum dollar requirement for money transfers, neglecting to monitor large cash deposits, and failing to report suspicious activity.

Corporate fraud can occur when companies prioritize profits over ethics and are willing to take unethical or illegal actions to increase their bottom line. Some of the key factors contributing to corporate fraud include:

• Competition - In a competitive business environment, companies often feel pressured to achieve high profits to stay in business. If managers believe that unethical practices are necessary to achieve these profits, they may engage in fraudulent activities.

​

• Pressure to perform - Managers and other employees who are under pressure to meet certain goals or produce certain results may be more likely to engage in fraudulent activities. While managers may not be directly responsible for meeting specific goals, they are often held responsible for achieving results. This puts managers under pressure to meet company expectations, even if doing so means engaging in fraudulent activities.

• Eroding ethical standards - As time passes, managers may come to view certain activities as normal or acceptable. Several decades ago, it was unlikely that companies would engage in practices such as accounting fraud. As time passes, ethical standards tend to erode, making it easier for managers to justify fraudulent activities.

​

​When companies engage in fraudulent activities, they can cause significant damage to their stakeholders. Shareholders often end up paying the price for fraud committed by company executives, particularly when the fraud involves the falsification of financial records. Customers can also be defrauded by a company, leading to a loss of money, time, and peace of mind. In some cases, customers may even be put in danger. Employees can also be negatively impacted by corporate fraud, particularly if fraud is committed by higher-ranking employees. Fraud also damages a company’s reputation, making it more difficult to attract new customers and raise capital.

​Corporate fraud is unsurprisingly common, particularly among large companies with significant assets and connections. A study published in the Journal of Financial Crime found that 54% of companies had committed fraud during the previous year. The most common types of fraud included false or misleading financial reporting, accounting fraud, embezzlement, and misappropriation of funds.

More than half of the companies surveyed also reported a major fraud incident during the previous year. Another study found that a full 80% of management teams had engaged in ethical wrongdoing at some point. The most common types of ethical wrongdoing included: - Falsifying financial records - 65% - Hiding illegal activities - 63% - Stealing company funds - 62% - Misreporting production - 59% - Falsifying safety records - 54% - Hiding relationships - 52%.

​Given the prevalence of fraud in the business world, companies need to implement effective fraud prevention programs. Fraud prevention programs should include both reactive and proactive measures. Reactive measures are designed to detect fraudulent practices after they have occurred, while proactive methods focus on preventing fraud from occurring in the first place.

​If you are a shareholder and you believe you have been the victim of corporate fraud, contact securities fraud attorney Timothy L. Miles today for a free case evaluation. 

​Corporate wrongdoing costs investors $330 billion dollars annually.  When a corporation engage in fraudulent business practices it most often has the effect of inflating stock prices. However, when the fraud is eventually exposed, the stock market reacts causing a sharp drop in the value of stock which is followed by a stead drop over an extended period. When investor purchases stock why its value was fraudulently or artificial inflated, investor losses can be directly linked to the corporate fraud and may be recovered. 

jWith billions of dollars in recoveries at issue in securities class cases, many investors are are not recouping all the money they could because few have the time or possess the legal knowledge to monitor their investments. As a result, most investors are not even aware of the existence of fraud in connection with securities they own because often the red flags indicating corporate fraud are unapparent and could otherwise go unnoticed until investors have incurred substantial losses. Therefore, when corportate fraud occurs investors are unually unaware and are not advised of their legal options.  Futhermore, investors usually have no way of being updated on the status of the case including, most notably, when a case has settled and of the necessaty of submitting the required claim forms to recover their losses which can be significantly in many instances.
 
Fortunately for investors, with the emergence of portfolio monitoring services which is offered by plaintiff’s securities firms (“Firms”) of charge, they now have a way to prevent this from happening in the future.  With portfolio monoriting investor are advised of their legal options when fraud has been detected or committed in connection with stocks they own and are notified if a case settles and are provided help filling out claims ensuring they recover a portion of their losses.  

Generally, portfolio monitoring utilizes sophisticated technology, along with other research tools and subscription services to track the stock market in real time and is managed by attorneys, accountants and analysts trained to identify indicators of corporate fraud. Portfolio Monitoring a typically free service offered by plaintiff firms to investors. Investors provide the Firm with information on their stock holdings and the Firm monitors the investments in order to alert investors to corporate wrongdoing and potential claims premised upon violations of the securities laws or breach of fiduciary duty. Attorneys will advise investors of their legal options, and explain the case process, and will even help investors fill out class action claim forms so they can receive their share of the settlement proceeds.

Whenever corporate fraud or other wrongdoing is exposed to the market, the market responds, and the company’s stock price will fall dramatically when the truth is revealed. Additionally, the stock price will continue to drop for some time after the truth has been exposed. Investors who purchased shares before the truth is revealed to the market, purchased those shares at artificially inflated prices.  When the fraud is exposed and the stock price collapses, investors incur losses due to the fraud and other wrongdoing by company insiders or directors.
 
​Many investors simply do not have the time to constantly monitor all of their investments and do not realize when one of their investments has been negatively affected by corporate wrongdoing and the price of the stock has dropped causing them to suffer losses. Many times, these loses can be significant. When investors utilize a Portfolio Monoriting Service, the Firm will alert them when one their investments is under an active investigation or has been negatively affected by fraud or other corporate misconduct.

​After explaining the results of their investigation, including analizing losses, and evaluating the merits of a potential claim, the Firm will advise investors of all their legal options including whether they may have a potential claim.  There is no obligation to take action, but if an investor chooses to do so, plaintiff Firms will usually represent investors free of charge on a contingency basis, and there is no obligation to retain the Firm monitoring an investors portfolio. 

After explaining the results of their investigation, including analizing losses, and evaluating the merits of a potential claim, the Firm will advise investors of all their legal options including whether they may have a potential claim.  There is no obligation to take action, but if an investor chooses to do so, plaintiff Firms will usually represent investors free of charge on a contingency basis, and there is no obligation to retain the Firm monitoring an investors portfolio. 

If a company in which an investor has invested decides to settle a case brought against it, the Firm will notify investors, for example, by sending them a link to the claim form and the Firm will assist investors in filling it out. After that, investors will receive a check for their portion of the settlement.

Protecting the privacy, confidentiality, and security of their clients’ information is of utmost importance to plaintiff Firms, and all data is protected by administrative, physical, and technical controls.

Because Portfolio Monoriting Service are offered free of charge and the information investors provide regarding their holdings is treated as strictly confidential, there are no risk to investors in utilizing a Portfolio Monoriting Service. On the other hand, investors will receive significant benefits in utilizing a Portfolio Monoriting Service. Investors do not have to worry about monitoring their investment twenty-four hours a day – the Firm do this for investors. In the event one of an investor’s investment has been negatively affected by corporate fraud, the Firm will alert an investor, explain the results of their investigation, including analyzing an investor’s losses, and will evaluate the merits of a potential claim, and the Firm will advise investors of all their legal options including whether the investor may have a potential claim.
 
While there is no obligation to take action, if an investor chooses to do so, most Firms will represent them free of charge on a contingency basis. Finally, if there has been a settlement in a case involving an investor’s holdings the Firm typically will send an investor a link to the claim form and assist them in filling it out. After that, investors will receive a check for their portion of the settlement. 

In short, there are no risk or costs to utilizing a Portfolio Monoriting Service and investors will receive the benefits of having their investments constantly monitored by a team of professionals, advised when their investments have been affected by corporate wrongdoing, advised of their legal options, and helped with the claims process when a case involving one of their investment settles ensuring investors receive their fair share of the settlement proceeds.

If you have any questions about Portfolio Monoriting Services, please do not hesitate to contact the author Timothy L. Miles today. 

​The Block class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Block, Inc. (NYSE: SQ) securities between November 4, 2021 and April 4, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”).  The Block class action lawsuit – captioned Esposito v. Block, Inc., No. 22-cv-08636 (S.D.N.Y.) – charges Block and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
​
If you suffered losses in Block stock and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Block action lawsuit, please provide your information below.  You can also contact Block Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles by calling 855/846-6529 or via e-mail at [email protected].  Lead plaintiff motions for the Block class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than December 12, 2022. If you suffered losses in Block stock and have questions, please contact BlockStock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today.

​Block, formerly known as Square Inc., is a technology company that creates financial service tools.  Block’s segments include Square, which offers financial tools for sellers, and Cash App, which provides financial tools for individuals.The Block class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period failed to disclose that: (i) Block lacked adequate protocols restricting access to customer sensitive information; (ii) as a result, a former employee was able to download certain reports of Block’s subsidiary, Cash App Investing, containing full customer names and brokerage account numbers, as well as brokerage portfolio value, brokerage portfolio holdings, and/or stock trading activity; and (iii) consequently, Block was reasonably likely to suffer significant damage, including reputational harm.

The Block class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period failed to disclose that: (i) Block lacked adequate protocols restricting access to customer sensitive information; (ii) as a result, a former employee was able to download certain reports of Block’s subsidiary, Cash App Investing, containing full customer names and brokerage account numbers, as well as brokerage portfolio value, brokerage portfolio holdings, and/or stock trading activity; and (iii) consequently, Block was reasonably likely to suffer significant damage, including reputational harm.

On April 4, 2022, Block announced that a former employee had improperly downloaded certain reports of Block’s subsidiary, Cash App Investing, on December 10, 2021.  The information in the reports included full customer names and brokerage account numbers, as well as brokerage portfolio value, brokerage portfolio holdings, and/or stock trading activity.  As many as 8.2 million Cash App Investing customers were affected.  Prior to April 4, 2022, Block had not disclosed this information to shareholders.  On this news, Block’s stock price fell by more than 6%, damaging investors who suffered losses in Block stock.

​The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased and suffered losses in Block stock to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Block class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class.  A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the securities class action lawsuit.  An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you suffered losses in Block stock, and have further questions, contact Block ​Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today who will fight to recover your damages.

​In a securities class action, a “Lead Plaintiff motion” is a motion filed with the court which sets forth arguments as to why you should be appointed as lead plaintiff, who is responsible for hiring class counsel and litigating the case on behalf of the other class members. 

​Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA) any investor who purchased and suffered losses in securities during the class period in the case, seek appointment as lead plaintiff the securities class action lawsuit. Under the PSLRA, after a complaint is filed, a plaintiff has no later than 20 days to circulate notice to shareholders about the filing of the complaint notifying shareholders that “not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class.” 15 U.S. Code § 78u–4(a)(3)(A)(i)-(iii.).  

A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class.  15 U.S. Code § 78u–4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb)-(cc). A lead plaintiff is a fiduciary and acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit.  The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit. 
An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. 

​If you were the victim of securities fraud, or would like to know more about the PSLRA’s lead plaintiff provisions, or have further questions, contact Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today.

The Fulgent Genetics class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Fulgent Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FLGT) securities between March 22, 2019 and August 4, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”).  The Fulgent Genetics class action lawsuit – captioned Pugley v. Fulgent Genetics, Inc., No. 22-cv-06764 (C.D. Cal.) – charges Fulgent Genetics and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
​
If you suffered losses in Fulgent Genetics stock and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Fulgent Genetics class action lawsuit, please provide your information below.  You can also contact Fulgent Genetics Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles by calling 855/846-6529 or via e-mail at [email protected].  Lead plaintiff motions for the Fulgent Genetics class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November 21, 2022. If you suffered losses in Fulgent Genetics stock and have questions, please contact Fulgent Genetics Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today.

​Fulgent Genetics provides COVID-19, molecular diagnostic, and genetic testing services to physicians and patients.  Fulgent Genetics must comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits the knowing and willful payment of “remuneration” to induce or reward patient referrals or the generation of business involving any item or service payable by the federal health care programs, as well as the federal Stark Law, which prohibits a physician from making referrals for certain designated health services, including laboratory services, that are covered by the Medicare program, to an entity with which the physician or an immediate family member has a direct or indirect financial relationship.
​
The Fulgent Genetics class action lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Fulgent Genetics had been conducting medically unnecessary laboratory testing, engaging in improper billing practices in relation to laboratory testing, and providing or receiving remuneration in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law; (ii) accordingly, Fulgent Genetics was likely to become subject to enhanced legal and regulatory scrutiny; (iii) Fulgent Genetics’ revenues, to the extent they were derived from the foregoing unlawful conduct, were unsustainable; and (iv) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to subject Fulgent Genetics to significant financial and/or reputational harm.
​
On August 4, 2022, Fulgent Genetics released its second quarter 2022 financial results, disclosing, among other items, that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) was conducting an investigation into certain of Fulgent Genetics’ reports filed with the SEC from 2018 through the first quarter of 2020.  The disclosure followed Fulgent Genetics’ receipt of a civil investigative demand issued by the U.S. Department of Justice related to its "investigation of allegations of medically unnecessary laboratory testing, improper billing for laboratory testing, and remuneration received or provided in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law."  On this news, Fulgent Genetics’ stock price fell by more than 17%, damaging investors who suffered losses in ​Fulgent Genetics stock.

​The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased and suffered losses in Fulgent Genetics stock to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Fulgent Genetics class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class.  A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the securities class action lawsuit.  An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you suffered losses in Fulgent Genetics stock, and have further questions, contact Fulgent Genetics ​Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today who will fight to recover your damages.

A Fulgent Genetics Stock Loss Lawyer is well-versed in the complex laws that govern the securities industry and litigation. A Fulgent Genetics Stock Loss Lawyer focuses on representing individual investors or funds who have been the victims of fraud or who have disputes with investment professionals. Ordinary individual investors, including civil servants, teachers, nurses, and retirees, may need a securities lawyer. In most cases, if they have lost money due to mistakes, incompetence, or fraud by an investment professional. While FINRA, the SEC, and state securities regulators serve a vital role in protecting investors, they simply have too many individuals, firms, and market transactions to monitor to discovery every act of fraud or negligence. Individual investors should consult with a securities lawyer if they have lost money due to fraud or stockbroker misconduct, such as a Fulgent Genetics Stock Loss Lawyer who will work to recover the losses you sustained through a Fulgent Genetics Class Action lawsuit.

If you suffered losses in Fulgent Genetics contact Palantir stock loss lawyer Timothy L. Miles today about a Fulgent Genetics class action lawsuit, and see what a Fulgent Genetics Loss Lawyer can do for you. We take all cases on a contingency basis which means we do not get paid unless we win your case. 

​An Investor who suffered losses in Palantir stock has filed Palantir Class Action Lawsuit. The Palantir class action lawsuit – captioned Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., No. 22-cv-02384 (D. Colo.) – charges Palantir Technologies Inc. (NYSE: PLTR) and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and was brought on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Palantir securities between November 9, 2021 and May 6, 2022
​
If you suffered losses in Palantir stock and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Palantir class action lawsuit, please provide your information here.  You can also contact Palantir Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles by calling 855/846-6529 or via e-mail at [email protected]  Lead plaintiff motions for the Palantir class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November 14, 2022. If you suffered losses in Palantir stock and have questions, please contact Palantir Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today.

Palantir builds and deploys software platforms to assist the U.S. intelligence community in counterterrorism investigations and operations.  Palantir has consistently described sources of geopolitical instability and other disruptions – e.g., armed conflicts, economic crises, and the COVID-19 pandemic – as tailwinds for its business.  Palantir also invests in so-called “marketable securities” consisting of equity securities in publicly traded companies.
 
The Palantir class action lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Palantir’s investments in marketable securities were having a significant negative impact on Palantir’s earnings per share (“EPS”) results; (ii) Palantir overstated the sustainability of its government segment’s growth and revenues; (iii) Palantir was experiencing a significant slowdown in revenue growth, particularly among its government customers, despite ongoing global conflicts and market disruptions; and (iv) as a result, Palantir was likely to miss consensus estimates for its first quarter 2022 (“Q1”) EPS and second quarter 2022 (“Q2”) sales outlook.
​
On May 9, 2022, Palantir issued a press release announcing its Q1 financial results and guidance for Q2.  For Q1, Palantir announced adjusted EPS of $0.02, compared to analyst estimates of $0.04 per share, noting on a conference call that the “[f]irst quarter adjusted [EPS of] $0.02 . . . includes a negative $0.02 impact driven primarily by unrealized losses on marketable securities.”  Palantir also disclosed that government revenue grew by only 16% year-over-year for Q1, representing a significant slowdown in revenue growth compared to prior quarters, and that, for Q2, Palantir expected $470 million in sales, compared to estimates of $483.76 million.  Palantir’s significant decline in revenue growth, particularly from its government customers, surprised investors, especially given the ongoing geopolitical instability and other disruptions caused by, among other things, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and Russo-Ukrainian War – that is, precisely the type of destabilizing conditions that Palantir had previously touted as tailwinds for its business. 

​On this news, Palantir’s stock price fell by more than 21%, damaging investors who suffered losses in Palantir stock.

​The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased and suffered losses in Palantir stock to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Palantir class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class.  A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the securities class action lawsuit.  An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you suffered losses in Palantir stock, and have further questions, contact Palantir ​Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today who will fight to recover your damages.

​A Palantir Stock Loss Lawyer is well-versed in the complex laws that govern the securities industry and litigation. A Palantir Stock Loss Lawyer focuses on representing individual investors or funds who have been the victims of fraud or who have disputes with investment professionals. Ordinary individual investors, including civil servants, teachers, nurses, and retirees, may need a securities lawyer. In most cases, if they have lost money due to mistakes, incompetence, or fraud by an investment professional. While FINRA, the SEC, and state securities regulators serve a vital role in protecting investors, they simply have too many individuals, firms, and market transactions to monitor to discovery every act of fraud or negligence. Individual investors should consult with a securities lawyer if they have lost money due to fraud or stockbroker misconduct, such as a Palantir Stock Loss Lawyer who will work to recover the losses you sustained through a Palantir Class Action lawsuit.​

​If you suffered losses in Palantir stock, contact Palantir stock loss lawyer Timothy L. Miles today about a Palantir class action lawsuit, and see what a Palantir Stock Loss Lawyer can do for you.  We take all cases on a contingency basis which means we do not get paid unless we win your case.

The Twitter class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR) publicly traded securities between August 3, 2020 and August 23, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”).  The Twitter class action lawsuit – captioned Baker v. Twitter, Inc., No. 22-cv-06525 (C.D. Cal.) – charges Twitter and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
​
​If you suffered losses in Twitter stock and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Twitter class action lawsuit, please provide your information below.  You can also contact Twitter Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles by calling 855/846-6529 or via e-mail at [email protected]  Lead plaintiff motions for the Twitter class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November 14, 2022. If you suffered losses in Twitter stock and have questions, please contact Twitter Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today.

In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a complaint against Twitter for mishandling users’ private information and the issue of too many employees having access to Twitter’s central controls.  On March 11, 2011, the FTC agreed to a settlement with Twitter and, as part of the settlement, Twitter agreed it would be “barred for 20 years from misleading consumers about the extent to which it protects the security, privacy, and confidentiality of nonpublic consumer information, including the measures it takes to prevent unauthorized access to nonpublic information and honor the privacy choices made by consumers.”

However, as the Twitter class action lawsuit alleges, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Twitter knew about security concerns on their platform; (ii) Twitter actively worked to hide the security concerns from their Board of Directors, the investing public, and regulators; (iii) contrary to representations in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, Twitter did not take steps to improve security; and (iv) Twitter’s active refusal to address security issues increased the risk of loss of public goodwill.

On August 23, 2022, CNN published an article titled “Ex-Twitter exec blows the whistle, alleging reckless and negligent cybersecurity policies,” reporting that “Twitter has major security problems that pose a threat to its own users’ personal information, to [Twitter] shareholders, to national security, and to democracy, according to an explosive whistleblower disclosure obtained exclusively by CNN and The Washington Post.”  The article further revealed that “[t]he whistleblower, who has agreed to be publicly identified, is Peiter ‘Mudge’ Zatko, who was previously [Twitter’s] head of security, reporting directly to the CEO.”  Specifically, “Zatko further alleges that Twitter’s leadership has misled its own board and government regulators about its security vulnerabilities, including some that could allegedly open the door to foreign spying or manipulation, hacking and disinformation campaigns.”
​
​On this news, Twitter’s stock price fell by approximately 7%, damaging investors who suffered losses in Twitter stock.

​The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased and suffered losses in Twitter stock to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Twitter class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class.  A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit.  An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you suffered losses in Twitter stock, and have further questions, contact Twitter ​Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today.

​A Twitter Stock Loss Lawyer is well-versed in the complex laws that govern the securities industry and litigation. A Twitter Stock Loss Lawyer focuses on representing individual investors or funds who have been the victims of fraud or who have disputes with investment professionals. Ordinary individual investors, including civil servants, teachers, nurses, and retirees, may need a securities lawyer. In most cases, if they have lost money due to mistakes, incompetence, or fraud by an investment professional. While FINRA, the SEC, and state securities regulators serve a vital role in protecting investors, they simply have too many individuals, firms, and market transactions to monitor to discovery every act of fraud or negligence. Individual investors should consult with a securities lawyer if they have lost money due to fraud or stockbroker misconduct, such as a Twitter Stock Loss Lawyer who will work to recover the losses you sustained through a Twitter Class Action lawsuit.​

​​If you suffered losses in Twitter stock, contact Twitter stock loss lawyer Timothy L. Miles today about a Twitter class action lawsuit, and see what a Twitter Stock Loss Lawyer can do for you.

​The Kohl’s class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Kohl’s Corporation (NYSE: KSS) securities between October 20, 2020 and May 19, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”).  The Kohl’s class action lawsuit – captioned Shanaphy v. Kohl’s Corporation, No. 22-cv-01016 (E.D. Wis.) – charges Kohl’s as well as certain of its top executives and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
​
If you suffered losses in Kohl’s stock and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Kohl’s class action lawsuit, please provide your information below.  You can also contact Kohl’s Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles by calling 855/846-6529 or via e-mail at [email protected]  Lead plaintiff motions for the Kohl’s class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November 1, 2022. If you suffered losses in Kohl’s stock and have questions, please contact Kohl’s Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today.

​In October 2020, Kohl’s announced that it had entered into a new strategic framework to “drive top-line growth,” “expand operating margin,” and become “the most trusted retailer of choice for the active and casual lifestyle” (the “Strategic Plan”).  In announcing the Strategic Plan, Kohl’s touted its purportedly strong foundation of customers, industry-leading loyalty and charge card programs, high volume of stores, and large and growing digital business.
 
The Kohl’s class action lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Kohl’s Strategic Plan was not well tailored to achieving Kohl’s stated goals; (ii) the defendants had likewise overstated Kohl’s success in executing its Strategic Plan; (iii) Kohl’s had deficient disclosure controls and procedures, internal control over financial reporting, and corporate governance mechanisms; (iv) as a result, Kohl’s Board of Directors was able to and did withhold material information from shareholders about the state of Kohl’s in the lead-up to Kohl’s annual meeting; and (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Kohl’s financial condition and reputation.
​
On May 19, 2022, Kohl’s announced its first quarter of 2022 results, reporting, among other items, a net sales figure expected to grow up to only 1% (compared to Wall Street consensus growth of 1.94%), earnings per share of $0.11 (missing estimates by $0.59), a revenue figure which only barely edged expectations, and Kohl’s decision to cut its full year earnings forecast.  These results were at odds with defendants’ representations regarding the successful execution of Kohl’s Strategic Plan, which was purportedly poised to drive top-line growth and position Kohl’s for long-term success.
 
Then, on May 20, 2022, Macellum Advisors GP, LLC, “a long-term holder of nearly 5% of the outstanding common shares of Kohl’s,” issued a statement addressing “[t]his quarter’s extremely disappointing results,” which Macellum attributed to a “flawed strategic plan and an inability to execute.”  Macellum also stated that “the current Board appears to have withheld material information from shareholders about the state of Kohl’s in the lead-up to this year’s pivotal annual meeting,” which “suggests to us a clear breach of fiduciary duty.”  On this news, Kohl’s stock price fell by nearly 13%, damaging investors who suffered losses in Kohl's stock.

​The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased and suffered losses in Kohl’s stock to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Kohl’s​ class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. 

​A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit.  The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit.  An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you suffered losses in Kohl’s stock, and have further questions, contact Kohl’s Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today.

A Kohl’s​ Stock Loss Lawyer is well-versed in the complex laws that govern the securities industry and litigation. A Kohl’s Stock Loss Lawyer focuses on representing individual investors or funds who have been the victims of fraud or who have disputes with investment professionals. Ordinary individual investors, including civil servants, teachers, nurses, and retirees, may need a securities lawyer. In most cases, if they have lost money due to mistakes, incompetence, or fraud by an investment professional.

​While FINRA, the SEC, and state securities regulators serve a vital role in protecting investors, they simply have too many individuals, firms, and market transactions to monitor to discovery every act of fraud or negligence. Individual investors should consult with a securities lawyer if they have lost money due to fraud or stockbroker misconduct, such as a Kohl’s Stock Loss Lawyer who will work to recover the losses you sustained through a Kohl’s Class Action lawsuit.​

​If you suffered losses in Kohl’s stock, contact Kohl’s stock loss lawyer Timothy L. Miles today about a Kohl’s class action lawsuit, and see what an Kohl’s​ Stock Loss Lawyer can do for you.

​The LifeStance Health class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST) common stock issued in connection with LifeStance Health’s June 10, 2021 initial public stock offering (the “IPO”).  Captioned Nayani v. LifeStance Health Group, Inc., No. 22-cv-06833 (S.D.N.Y.) – the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit charges LifeStance Health, certain of its top executives and directors, as well as the IPO’s underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
Additionally, read on to learn about the Firm’s investigation of the LifeStance Health Board.

LifeStance Health is one of the nation’s largest providers of virtual and in-person outpatient mental health care.  LifeStance Health benefitted from the state and local lockdown orders necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic starting in the spring of 2020.  But by December 2020, several COVID-19 vaccines were being approved and administered, meaning LifeStance Health’s access to clients seeking virtual mental health services would significantly decline while demand for in-person services would increase.  LifeStance Health conducted its IPO on June 10, 2021, selling 46 million shares at $18.00 per share, raising $828 million in gross proceeds.
 
However, as the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit alleges, the IPO’s registration statement failed to disclose the following material facts: (i) that the number of virtual visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance Health was decreasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby flatlining LifeStance Health’s out-patient/virtual revenue growth; (ii) that the percentage of in-person visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance Health was increasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby causing LifeStance Health’s operating expenses to increase substantially; (iii) that LifeStance Health had lost a large number of physicians due to burn-out and, as a result, its physician retention rate had fallen significantly below the 87% highlighted in the IPO’s registration statement and LifeStance Health had been expending additional costs to onboard new physicians who were less productive than the outgoing physicians they were replacing; and (iv) as a result, LifeStance Health’s business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as the IPO’s registration statement represented.
 
At the time of the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit’s filing, LifeStance Health common stock traded in a range of $4.77-$7.70, a reduction of upwards of 73% from the price the shares were sold at in the IPO, as investors suffered losses in LifeStance Health.

​​The investigation of the LifeStance Health board focuses on whether the board of directors of LifeStance Health have breached their fiduciary duties to the company in light of the serious allegations raised in the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit filed against the Company and the resulting loss of market capitalization, among others.  The firm urges long-term stockholders of LifeStance Health to call LifeStance Health Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today or simply submit the form at the bottom of the link if you have questions about the investigation of the LifeStance Health Board which remains ongoing.

​​If you are a long-term stockholder of LifeStance Health, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact LifeStance Health Stock Loss Lawyer, Timothy L. Miles, by email at [email protected], or telephone at (858) Tim-M-Law, or by filling out the contact form at the bottom of the link and someone will promptly call you back. There is no cost or obligation to you, so go ahead and call and see what a LifeStance Health Stock Loss Lawyer can do for you.

​The Co-Diagnostics class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX) publicly traded securities between May 12, 2022 and the close of the market on August 11, 2022 (4:00 p.m. ET), inclusive (the “Class Period”).  The Co-Diagnostics class action lawsuit – captioned Stadium Capital LLC v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc., No. 22-cv-06978 (S.D.N.Y.) – charges Co-Diagnostics and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.​​ 

​On April 6, 2020, Co-Diagnostics announced that it had received an Emergency Use Authorization for its Logix Smart™ COVID-19 detection test from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, allowing it to commence sales of the test to laboratories certified by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services under the Clinical Laboratories Improvements Act to accept human samples for diagnostics testing throughout the United States.
 
The Co-Diagnostics class action lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i) demand for its Logix Smart™ COVID-19 test had plummeted throughout the quarter ended June 30, 2022, and (ii) as a result, defendants’ positive statements about the demand for its Logix Smart™ COVID-19 test lacked a reasonable basis.
 
On August 11, 2022, Co-Diagnostics disclosed its financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2022, in which Co-Diagnostics revealed revenue of $5.0 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2022, down from $27.4 million during the prior year period, a decline of almost 82%.  Co-Diagnostics primarily attributed the decrease to lower demand of the Logix Smart™ COVID-19 test.  On this news, the price of Co-Diagnostics common stock declined by more than 30%, damaging investors who suffered losses in Co-Diagnostics stock.

​The investigation of the Co-Diagnostics board focuses on whether the board of directors of Co-Diagnostics have breached their fiduciary duties to the company in light of the serious allegations raised in the Coinbase class action lawsuit filed against the Company.  The firm urges long-term stockholders of Coinbase to call Co-Diagnostics Stock Loss Lawyer Timothy L. Miles today or simply submit the form at the bottom of the link if you have questions about the investigation of the Coinbase Board which remains ongoing.

​If you are a long-term stockholder of Co-Diagnostics, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Co-Diagnostics Stock Loss Lawyer, Timothy L. Miles, by email at [email protected], or telephone at (858) Tim-M-Law, or by filling out the contact form at the bottom of the link and someone will promptly call you back. There is no cost or obligation to you, so go ahead and call and see what a Co-Diagnostics Stock Loss Lawyer can do for you.

The Coinbase class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: COIN) securities between April 14, 2021 and July 26, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”).  The Coinbase class action lawsuit – captioned Patel v. Coinbase Global, Inc., No. 22-cv-04915 (D.N.J.) – charges Coinbase and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.