fbpx

Article Type: Investigation

WeWork Investors Claim Company Misled Them Class Action

The fall of the We Company, also known as WeWork, was described as “one of the most spectacular flameouts in recent corporate history.” Its company valuation fell by 90% in a single year. This class action claims that WeWork misled the public about the company’s actions and intentions, violating the California Corporations Code.

The class for this action is all persons who directly or indirectly bought WeWork securities between May 15, 2017 and September 30, 2019.

WeWork rents commercial office space with long-term contracts, redesigns and furnishes the spaces, and re-rents them in smaller portions to tech startups and other businesses. The spaces were intended to provide a sense of “community” to the new companies who occupied them.

The company’s purported ends were lofty—offering a “physical social network,” “to elevate the world’s consciousness,” providing “a culture of inclusivity and the energy of an inspired community, all connected by [the Company’s] extensive technology infrastructure.” The company said it had “the power to elevate how people work, live and grow.”

WeWork displayed amazing growth, with revenues that purportedly quadrupled between 2016 and 2018. The complaint claims that “its community membership and occupancy metrics had soared, that the Company was extracting more revenue per member on a constant-city basis, and that it was poised for rapid revenue growth and on a sustained path to profitability.”

Like other startups, WeWork had substantial losses. However, company executives claimed these were part of what the complaint calls “controlled expansion plans and growth investment strategy.” As the company expanded into other, non-real-estate areas, the complaint alleges it claimed that its “core business remained highly profitable and that the investments in growth initiatives were laying the foundation for a profitable future once WeWork achieved market dominance, much like other successful technology startups such as Amazon, Inc. and Netflix, Inc. had done.”

In January 2019, with its valuation at $47 billion, WeWork began pursuing an initial public offering (IPO).

However, the complaint alleges that the company’s losses were anything but the controlled growth and strategic investment spending it claimed. Instead, the complaint alleges, the company “was engaged in profligate spending in a reckless bid for growth at all costs” with the intention of attracting investment at high valuations. The complaint claims, “The Company has since admitted as much.”

According to the complaint, “In an October 2019 slide presentation, after shocking details emerged of the Company’s behind-the-scenes excess in the course of its failed IPO bid, WeWork acknowledged it had eschewed a disciplined focus on profitable market expansion … and instead strove to ‘[g]row business commitments prior to funding commitments.’ In other words, WeWork expanded its business empire not because it made business sense, but for the primary purpose of inducing additional investment in the Company.”

The complaint also mentions the company’s “use of fanciful accounting metrics to obscure its true financial condition, such as ‘community adjusted EBITDA,’” which the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “rejected … as misleading.”

Paycheck Advance Programs and Apps High Fees Investigation

Have you gotten an advance on your paycheck through a wage-advance app or a program your employer offers? Do you live in the state of New York, or is your employer’s headquarters in that state?

Some users of these apps or programs have been surprised at the price they were charged for this advance. We’re investigating to see if these lenders or programs have given users sufficient information about what they were to pay for this advance service.

Companies sometimes offer an advance on wages to help employees meet emergencies or shortfalls between paychecks. The arrangement consists of an agreement for an online entity or app to provide you with your earnings a few days before they’d normally be paid. This loan is repaid when your actual paycheck is deposited. Sometimes, the employer is not involved, and the individual enters into the arrangement with the lender.

Some of the better-known apps or lenders in this business include the following:

• Daily Pay
• Even
• FinFit
• FlexWage
• Instant Financial
• PayActiv
• Others

Daily Pay’s website advertises its PayEx platform by saying, “With our PayEx solution, employees can access their pay and tips early and save it as they earn it.” It claims that its program can “reduce financial stress for … employees.”

Even’s website puts it this way: “Employee financial stress and uncertainty are at an all-time high. Even’s Daily Money Platform gives employees visibility into their daily earnings, access to pay when they need it, and the power to plan—before payday arrives.”

And FinFit bills itself as “Building Employee Financial Wellness” and claims its services are an “Affordable alternative to high-interest loans.”

But are these statements true? Do they really help reduce financial stress, or do they add to it with high fees? Do these platforms in fact charge larger amounts for their services than expected, just as payday lenders do?

Because the money is repaid immediately, there does not seem to be an interest rate. However, these advances are a form of loan, and you pay a fee for them. The fee you’re charged can actually be similar to a high interest rate on a normal loan. We’re investigating to see if a class action is appropriate.

If you’ve used one of these programs, and you’re a resident of New York or an employee of a company headquartered in New York, we’d like to know about your experience. If you were surprised at the high fee, and you feel that the program deceived you about this, please let us know about it.

L’il Critters and Vitafusion “Complete” Multivitamin Investigation

Do you or members of your family take vitamins to provide all the essential nutrients your body needs? Did you buy L’il Critters Multivitamins, Vitafusion Women’s Complete Multivitamins, or Vitafusion Men’s Complete Multivitamins because the advertising claimed they are “complete” and provide “essential” nutrients?

We’re investigating these vitamins, their advertising claims, and their actual contents to see if a class action is warranted on the basis of false advertising.

What Does the Advertising Say?

Many consumers these days are looking for healthy foods and supplements, and they are willing to pay more for what they see as quality. Companies cater to this desire in their advertising.

The company that makes these vitamins, Church & Dwight Co., Inc., has advertised these vitamins as “complete” and providing the “essential” nutrients people need.

For example, the front label of the L’il Critters product advertises it as a “Complete Multivitamin.” The website page says, “For a complete children’s multivitamin with a delicious fusion of vitamins and minerals, try L’il CrittersTM Gummy VitesTM.”

The page for Vitafusion Women’s Complete Multivitamins says, “Women’s gummy vitamins provide a complete multivitamin formula that has been specially formulated to support the specific health needs of women. A fusion of essential vitamins, minerals and natural fruit flavors…”

Similarly, the page for Vitafusion Men’s Complete Multivitamins says, “Men’s multivitamin provides a complete gummy multivitamin that has been specially formulated to address the health needs of men. These delicious gummies combine essential vitamin and minerals with natural fruit flavors.”

What’s the Problem?

Consumers are now alleging that the vitamins are not “complete,” but in fact lack three vitamins that are “essential” for health: vitamin B1 (thiamine), vitamin B2 (riboflavin), and vitamin K. Also, they claim, the Men’s version of the vitamins claims to offer vitamin B3 (niacin) when it does not.

The complaint for a recent class action against Church & Dwight argues that consumers were misled by the company’s claims, thinking that the vitamins were “complete” and would provide all the “essential” nutrients they needed.

The judge in the case found that, whether or not the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a fixed definition of “complete” for multivitamins, consumers could still be misled by the advertising and labeling.

What Do You Look for in a Multivitamin?

Did you buy any of these multivitamins? Was your purchase influenced by the claim that they were “complete” and supplied “essential” nutrients? If so, fill out the form on this page and let us know what your experience was.

Investigation of Covid-19 Business Cancelations with No Refunds

To stop or slow the spread of the coronavirus, many businesses and organizations have shut down or curtailed services. But what happens if you’ve already paid for those services and they’re no longer available? Some businesses are giving refunds, but others are offering credits that may turn out to be useless or simply shrugging.

A class action may be necessary to get some of these parties to refund your money.

What’s the Problem?

A number of class actions have already been filed against airlines. Airlines have been severely underbooked, so they have canceled a substantial percentage of their flights. However, many are not giving the affected passengers refunds. They have been offering vouchers or credits instead, but these expire, and it’s not clear how long we’re going to be affected by waves of this pandemic.

While the Department of Transportation has issued an Enforcement Notice, reminding airlines of their obligation to refund tickets for flights they cancel, many airlines are still not complying.

Cruises are particularly high-risk, and they’ve been canceled as well. But some companies want to hold on to the money they’d expected to earn and, like the airlines, give vouchers or credits for future cruises in place of refunds.

Gyms have closed down, because a group of people breathing hard in an enclosed space now presents risks. Some customers have paid for yearlong memberships, however, and they’re no longer getting the benefit of the bargain.

Concerts and sports events have been forbidden by order prohibiting assemblies of large groups of people. Some of these will be difficult or impossible to reschedule as time goes on, and later, substitute events may not be as attractive to ticketholders.

Why isn’t a credit or voucher good enough?

The problem of Covid-19 makes these cancellations unlike those in ordinary times, when a concert could be easily rescheduled or a vacationer could take a different flight. Travel and activities are restricted, and even when they can be rescheduled, they may be dangerous for people who are at high risk of death from Covid-19.

Also, people have lost jobs, hours of work, or income, and they may be worried about paying their basic expenses at the moment.

It’s become difficult to plan ahead, since no one can say for sure what the course of the pandemic will be or what restrictions will exist a few months from now. Credits that expire may become worthless before they can be used.

We’re investigating to see if a class action is necessary.

What’s Your Experience?

Have you lost the benefit of any of the following items you’ve already paid for?
• Flights
• Hotels and resorts
• Cruises
• Rental cars
• Concert and sports event tickets
• Gym and other memberships
• Other prepaid services or benefits that have been canceled

If you have, and if you have not received a refund, fill out the form on this page and let us know what your experience was.

Investigation of Foreign Transaction Fees on Payments at Foreign Websites

Do you shop on foreign websites? Has your debit or credit card been charged a foreign (or international) transaction fee on a purchase you made there?

We’re investigating how foreign transaction fees are applied.

Originally, foreign transaction fees were applied only to purchases you made with your card in a foreign country. In earlier days, this situation was pretty clear-cut: You were only charged these fees if you actually were in the foreign country. Now the Internet has made it possible to buy from foreign countries while we’re still at home. Is a foreign transaction fee appropriate on these purchases, or does it violate the rules?

Why Do They Exist?

When you make a transaction in a foreign country, the payment card company must make pay the merchant in the currency of that country. For example, a transaction in France must be paid in francs; a transaction in Japan must be paid in yen; and a transaction in Canada must be paid in Canadian dollars.

To complete your transaction, then, an American card company therefore has to exchange American dollars for the currency needed. For this service, card companies normally charge a fee of from one to three percent of the transaction amount. Some of the fee goes to the card processor (such as Visa or Mastercard) and some to the card issuer (for example, a bank).

The rules for the charges vary by company. Some companies, like Capital One and Discover, do not charge foreign transaction fees for transactions in our nearest neighboring countries, Canada and Mexico.

Expanding the Charges

While each individual fee may be modest, they can add up. Card companies make significant revenue from these fees each year.

A recent class action against Bank of America claims, “The 1% international transaction fees assessed by VISA International alone resulted in $424 million in revenue in 2004—which was nearly 30% of its revenue that year.” It’s therefore profitable for banks or companies to find more occasions to charge such fees.

The Bank of American class action alleged that the bank was charging “hidden and inflated” transaction fees when customers withdrew money from their home accounts through an ATM while they were in a foreign country.

Now that the Internet has enabled consumers to shop at foreign websites, card companies see another chance to earn fees. But are they legitimate? Do the card company’s own agreements with the customer permit it to charge these fees? We’re investigating to see if a class action is needed.

Have You Been Unfairly Charged?

If you’ve been charged a foreign or international transaction fee when you used your American payment card at a foreign website, fill out the form on this page. Let us know what your experience was.

Subaru Forester, Legacy, Outback Unintended Acceleration Investigation

Has your Subaru suddenly accelerated for no reason—even when you were pressing on the brake? Is your vehicle a 2012-2018 Subaru Forester, 2015-2019 Subaru Legacy, or 2015-2019 Subaru Outback?

Drivers of these vehicles have been reporting incidents of unintended acceleration. In some accounts, they were not able to stop the car at all or heard the engine revving up in a frightening way.

We’re investigating to see if a class action is needed.

A Frightening Problem

Complaints appear on various websites, including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Carcomplaints.com, and Carproblemzoo.com:

2018 Forester: “…After backing part way out of the garage when I put the car in gear it shot forward and I was unable to stop the vehicle until it hit the back garage wall. When the vehicle was then put into reverse it shot backwards, also…. Damage was done to the front end of the vehicle, the garage wall and the inside utility room and hallway.”

2019 Outback: “Slowly pulling straight into parking spot at grocery store. Applied brake when car suddenly accelerated. I was able to control steering, but brakes would not work. Steered car into empty parking spot in front of me then turned hard right…. Subaru hit a pick up truck that was reversing out of a diagonal parking spot. The car didn’t stop upon impact, instead both right side wheels climbed up the side of truck at an angle….”

2017 Forester: “While parking the car in a parking lot going at 10 mph, the car suddenly accelerated at top speed went over a curb and hit a tree. The car then went in reverse at full speed in a circle approximately six times until the key could finally be removed.”

In some of the incidents, the drivers report that when the incident resulted in a collision, the airbags or seatbelts did not deploy properly.

So far, Subaru has not offered a fix for the problem or issued a recall. Dealers can’t reproduce the problem and say there’s nothing wrong.

One Lawsuit Already Filed

Carcomplaints.com reports that at least one lawsuit has already been filed, alleging that the vehicles all suffer from the same problem. One theory is that the problem stems from electronic throttle control, or a problem with “the throttle position sensor, throttle body assembly, powertrain control module and circuit board allegedly malfunction, and the brake override system doesn’t override unintended acceleration.”

Similar Problems with Other Vehicles

Unintended acceleration reports were made on 1998-99 Audi A6 sedans, and on 2002-2003 Toyota Camrys, Solaras, and Lexus ES 300s.

The earliest instances of unintended acceleration, in the 1980s, were dismissed as probably due to driver error. But with automotive electronic systems governing more and more functions, and becoming more and more complicated, vehicles are coming under closer scrutiny. The problem is clearly potentially dangerous.

Have You Experienced This Problem?

If you’ve experienced unintended acceleration with one of these vehicles, fill out the form on this page and let us know what happened.

United States Oil Fund Investment Losses Investigation

Did you lose a large amount of money on your investment with the exchange-traded fund (ETF) United States Oil Fund, LP (USO)? Do your losses on this fund add up to $250,000 or more?

We’re investigating whether certain statements made by USO in its March 2020 registration statement might have been false or misleading, giving investors a false image of the company’s plans or condition.

USO was issued in April 2006 by the United States Commodity Fund (USCF). It was intended to give investment results corresponding to the movements of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) light, sweet crude oil. It is intended for short-term investors who closely monitor their investments and are bullish on short-term WTI crude oil futures contracts.

The fund’s benchmark is the WTI crude oil futures contract traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures contracts have expiration dates, and USO does not want to take actual delivery of any oil, so USO must roll its front-month futures contracts over to contracts expiring the following month. For example, contracts that expire in January must eventually be rolled over to purchase contracts that expire in February.

USO’s registration statement issued on March 23, 2020 said, “USCF does not anticipate letting USO’s Oil Futures Contracts expire and taking delivery of the underlying commodity. Instead, USCF will close existing positions, e.g., when it changes the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts or Other Oil-Related Investments or it otherwise determines it would be appropriate to do so and reinvests the proceeds in new Oil Futures Contracts or Other Oil-Related Investments. Positions may also be closed out to meet orders for Redemption Baskets and in such case proceeds for such baskets will not be reinvested.”

In April 2020, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, oil prices collapsed.

On April 20, the price of the May contract for WTI crude closed at -$37.63 per barrel, a single-day falloff 300%, an enormous disruption of the oil market.

An article at the Investopedia website says that “the price of USO dropped more than 30% to just above $2 per share and new trades were halted as the fund’s managers began making structural changes in efforts to avoid a complete collapse.”

On April 22, USCF, the issuer of the USO Fund, announced a one-for-eight reverse stock split. In other words, every eight shares of USO stock would become equal to one share of stock, with the price of the new share being eight times the value of one of the old shares. The reverse split and new share price would take place after the close of trading on April 28 and be effective for trading on April 29, 2020.

Such reverse splits are often considered a sign that a security is in distress.

We’re investigating to see if a securities class action is appropriate.

If you lost a large amount of money on investments in the USO Fund, fill out the form on this page. We’d like to know what your experience was.

DCU Non-Sufficient Funds and Overdraft Fees Investigation

An auto-pay bill comes due in your bank account and your bank refuses the transaction because you don’t have enough money. How many non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees should you be charged for this? Should you be charged an NSF fee now and an overdraft (OD) fee later? If your bank is Digital Federal Credit Union (DCU), you might find yourself paying more than you thought, as the bank decides, on its own and without notice to you, to retry the transaction.

This is the way it works: You set up an auto-payment in your account for a regularly-occurring bill—for your auto loan or your Internet service, for example. The auto-payment date comes, the transaction is tried, and the bank rejects it. You might say, “OK, I’ll wait until I have more money in my account before I try to make this payment.” But DCU maydecide, without any request from you, or notice to you, to retry the transaction. And if the transaction fails to go through again, well, you owe another NSF fee.

Is this fair? We’re investigating to see if a class action is needed.

Some banks, in fact, permit themselves to do this. They put it in the fine print in their deposit agreements, fee schedules, or other documents.

DCU’s Account Agreement is vague. It says, “We may charge you more than one fee, including an Automatic Transfer from Savings fee and an Overdraft Item Paid or Returned Nonsufficient Funds fee, for a single transaction…” Elsewhere, it says, “We may charge a Returned Nonsufficient Funds fee and/or Overdraft Item Paid fee each time a merchant presents a single transaction for payment, even if that same transaction is presented for payment multiple times.”

Some legal experts believe that an item like “December car loan payment” is only one item and that multiple fees should not be applied. And if DCU allows itself to charge both an NSF fee and an OD fee for a retry by the merchant, why not just charge the OD fee the first time?

DCU was opened in 1979 for the benefit of employees of the Digital Equipment Corporation. It is now the largest credit union with its headquarters in New England, with over 800,000 members and $8 billion in assets. Its branches include eighteen full-service locations in Massachusetts and four in New Hampshire.

If you have a DCU account in the US and you’ve been charged multiple NSF fees, or an NSF fee and an OD fee, on a single item, we’d like to hear from you. Fill out the form on this page and let us know what your experience was.

Santander Multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees Investigation

An auto-pay bill comes due in your bank account and your bank refuses the transaction because you don’t have enough money in the account. How many non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees should you be charged for this? One should be enough, right? But if your bank is Santander Bank, NA, you might find yourself charged two or even more in the coming days.

This is the way it works: You set up an auto-payment in your account for a regularly-occurring bill—for your auto loan or your Internet service, for example. The auto-payment date comes, the transaction is tried, and the bank rejects it. You might say, “OK, I’ll wait until I have more money in my account before I try to make this payment.” But Santander may decide, without any request from you, or notice to you, to retry the transaction. And if the transaction fails to go through again, well, you owe another NSF fee.

Is this fair? We’re investigating to see if a class action is needed.

Some banks, in fact, permit themselves to do this. They put it in the fine print in their deposit agreements, fee schedules, or other documents. But Santander’s Personal Deposit Account Agreement doesn’t warn you that it will do this. It doesn’t seem to say anything at all about NSF fees.

Its Personal Deposit Account Fee Schedule does contain a fee for “Insufficient or Unavailable Funds—Item Returned,” which is $35. A note says, “A maximum of six (6) item returned fees may be charged per business day.” “Item Returned” is singular, which some legal experts believe means that there can only be one such charge per item, with an item being something like “December car loan payment.” Using this understanding, the item remains the same item, no matter how many times the bank decides to try it. The fee schedule does not list a “Fee Per Try” or “Retry Fee” or similar charge.

Is Santander violating its own agreements?

Santander Bank, NA was formerly known as the Sovereign Bank. During the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, it expanded by acquiring numerous other banks.

Sovereign did not fare well during the 2008 economic crash, suffering from losses related to its auto loans and stock it owned in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Spanish entity Santander Group already owned a substantial percentage of its shares, and in late 2008 it purchased the remainder of Sovereign, to which it gave its name in 2011.

Today, Santander Bank, NA operates primarily in the northeastern US, with 650 offices and more than $57 billion in deposits. It is not a small organization.

If you have a Santander account in the US and you’ve been charged multiple NSF fees on a single item, we’d like to hear from you. Fill out the form on this page and let us know what your experience was.

Flagstar Multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees Investigation

What happens when an auto-pay bill comes due in your Flagstar Bank account—say, your auto loan payment or Internet service bill—and there’s not enough money to cover the transaction? If Flagstar refuses the transaction, it will charge you a non-sufficient funds (NSF) fee. So far, so good.

But what if, in the following days, you’re charged another such fee, and maybe a third one? And you haven’t put more money in your account or requested that the transaction be tried again?

That is, even though you might want to wait before trying the transaction again, Flagstar may decide to retry it. And if the transaction fails to go through again, you’ll owe another NSF fee.

Is this fair? We’re investigating to see if a class action is needed.

Some banks, in fact, permit themselves to do this. They put this in the fine print in their deposit agreements, fee schedules, and other documents. Flagstar does mention NSF fees in its Disclosure Guide.

For example, it says, “[W]e may return (i.e., not honor or reject) any Item that would cause your account to become overdrawn, or further overdraw your account. If we do not honor such an Item, the transaction will be considered a non-sufficient funds transaction and we may assess a Non-Sufficient Funds Charge against your account.”

It also says, “We may assess … more than one Non-Sufficient Funds Charge to your account each day, depending on the number of checks and other Items presented on your account that day…”

The Fee Schedule lists an NSF charge of $36, described as “[a] charge for a returned, unpaid Item…”

Some legal experts believe that this means that the NSF charge is assessed per item. If an item is considered to be, say, “December Auto Loan Payment,” they say, the item remains the same item, even if it’s tried more than once. Flagstar’s fee schedule does not list a “Fee Per Try” or “Retry Fee” or similar charge.

Is Flagstar violating its own agreements?

Flagstar is one of the largest residential mortgage servicing companies and one of the largest banks in the US.

Flagstar was founded in 1987 as First Security Savings Bank. Its parent company, Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Flagstar had difficulties during the 2007-2008 financial crash. It took part in TARP, the federal bailout. In 2012, the Justice Department filed a complaint against it for improper approvals of mortgage loans for government insurance. It eventually reached settlements concerning its residential mortgage-backed securities with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

If you have a Flagstar account in the US and you’ve been charged multiple NSF fees on a single item, we’d like to hear from you. Fill out the form on this page and let us know what your experience was.