Marina Bay Sands Casino Owner
- Marina Bay Sands Casino Owner Properties
- Marina Bay Sands Casino Owner Waterfront
- Marina Bay Sands Casino Owner Rentals
The article quoted the Singapore Casino Regulatory Authority ('CRA') as stating that 'there were weaknesses in Marina Bay Sands' casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers.' On this news, Las Vegas Sands' stock price fell $2.18 per share, or 4.2%, to close at $49.67 per share on September 16, 2020. Marina Bay Sands is the leading business, leisure and entertainment destination in Asia. Las Vegas Sands was founded in 1988 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops, owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the U.S., which offer various amenities. Las Vegas Sands’ properties include, among others, the Marina Bay Sands resort in Singapore, which operates a casino. アジア系セレブリティシェフ、ジャスティン・クエック氏が、ヨーロッパの高級レストランで培った技術とセンスを活かし、中華料理やシンガポール料理をアレンジした創作料理をお届けいたします。 Definitions of MarinaBaySands, synonyms, antonyms, derivatives of MarinaBaySands, analogical dictionary of MarinaBay. The new hotel high-rise is slated to add about 1,000 suites to the 2,500 already at the three-tower Marina Bay Sands. “The additional hotel rooms are extremely important to us in addressing the.
NEW YORK, Dec. 09, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Las Vegas Sands Corporation (NYSE: LVS), Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ: IPHA), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), and First American Financial Corporation (NYSE: FAF). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Marina Bay Sands Casino Owner Properties
Las Vegas Sands Corporation (NYSE: LVS)
Class Period: February 27, 2016 to September 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 21, 2020
Las Vegas Sands was founded in 1988 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops, owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the U.S., which offer various amenities.
Las Vegas Sands’ properties include, among others, the Marina Bay Sands resort in Singapore, which operates a casino.
On July 19, 2020, Bloomberg News reported that Las Vegas Sands had settled a lawsuit brought by a former patron, Wang Xi (“Xi”), meeting his demand for a S$9.1 million ($6.5 million) payment. Xi reportedly sued the Marina Bay Sands casino in 2019 to recover S$9.1 million of his funds that the casino allegedly transferred to other patrons from his casino deposit accounts in 2015 without his approval, which triggered a probe into the casino by local authorities. Bloomberg News also reported that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) “is also scrutinizing whether anti-money laundering procedures had been breached in the way the Singapore casino handles high rollers.”
On this news, Las Vegas Sands’ stock price fell $1.41 per share, or 2.9%, to close at $47.28 per share on July 20, 2020.
Then, on September 16, 2020, Bloomberg reported that Marina Bay Sands “has hired a law firm to conduct a new investigation into employee transfers of more than $1 billion in gamblers’ money to third parties[.]” The article quoted the Singapore Casino Regulatory Authority (“CRA”) as stating that “there were weaknesses in [Marina Bay Sands’] casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers[.]”
On this news, Las Vegas Sands’ stock price fell $2.18 per share, or 4.2%, to close at $49.67 per share on September 16, 2020.
The complaint, filed on October 22, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) weaknesses existed in Marina Bay Sands’ casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers; (ii) the Marina Bay Sands’ casino was consequently prone to illicit fund transfers that implicated, among other issues, the transfer of customer funds to unauthorized persons and potential breaches in the Company’s anti-money laundering procedures; (iii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against the Company, as well as investigation and increased oversight by regulatory authorities; (iv) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures; (v) consequently, all the foregoing issues were untimely disclosed; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Las Vegas Sands class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LVS
Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ: IPHA)
Marina Bay Sands Casino Owner Waterfront
Class Period: March 10, 2020 to September 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 22, 2020
On September 8, 2020, the Company submitted to the SEC a Form 6-K containing a press release summarizing the results of the first half of 2020, ended June 30, 2020 (the “1H2020 Results”). In the 1H2020 Results, defendants abruptly announced a change in the long-touted payment scheme with AstraZeneca.
On this news, Innate’s American Depositary Share (“ADS”) prices dropped $1.62, or over 26.6%, from closing at $6.07 on September 4, 2020, the previous trading day, to open at $4.82 on September 8, 2020, and declined throughout the trading day to close at $4.45.
The complaint, filed on October 23, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innate touted the results of their various Phase 2 trials as being within expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure investors that they were eligible for the $100 million payment upon first dosing of Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely disclose their renegotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100 million payment into two $50 million payments, to be partially contingent on performance during the Phase 3 trials; and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the Innate Pharma class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/IPHA
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM)
Class Period: February 23, 2016 to September 23, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2020
On November 6, 2018, the Department of Justice announced in a press release that former JPMorgan precious metals trader John Edmonds pled guilty to commodities fraud and a spoofing conspiracy.
On August 20, 2019, the Department of Justice announced that another JPMorgan employee, Christian Trunz, pled guilty to spoofing charges, and had done so with the knowledge and consent of his supervisors.
On September 23, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the Company was nearing a settlement to resolve the spoofing charges.
On this news, shares of JPMorgan stock fell $2.04 per share, or 2%, to close at $92.74 per share on September 23, 2020.
On September 29, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) formally announced that it had ordered JPMorgan to pay $920 million to settle the spoofing and manipulation charges. According to the order, the Company failed to monitor its employees and ignored multiple red flags. The Company also provided the CFTC with misleading information.
The complaint, filed on October 24, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) traders at the Company, with the knowledge and consent of their superiors, manipulated the precious metals market by “spoofing,” or placing fake orders to generate the appearance of market demand; (2) the Company had insufficient controls and compliance protocols to enable it to identify and stop the misconduct; (3) the Company’s earnings in the physical commodity market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (5) the Company provided misleading information to CFTC investigators at early stages of the investigation into the misconduct; (6) resolution of the governmental investigation into the Company would result in a record-breaking $920 million fine; and (7) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the JPMorgan securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/cases/JPM
First American Financial Corporation (NYSE: FAF)
Class Period: February 17, 2017 to October 22, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 24, 2020
On May 24, 2019, KrebsOnSecurity.com (“KrebsOnSecurity”), a noted cybersecurity blog, reported a massive data exposure by First American in which approximately 885 million customer files were exposed by First American.
On this news, shares of First American fell $3.46, or over 6%, to close at $51.80 per share on May 25, 2019.
On October 22, 2020, First American filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, announcing that the Company had received a Wells Notice regarding its massive security breach.
On this news the price of First American shares fell approximately $4.83 per share, or 9%, to close at $46.75 per share on October 22, 2020.
The complaint, filed on October 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company failed to implement basic security standards to protect its customers’ sensitive personal information and data; (2) the Company faced a heightened risk of cybersecurity failure due to its automation and efficiency initiatives; and (3) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the First American Financial class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FAF
About BragarEagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
