Homepage
PR Newswire
17-08-2017, 08:07 PM
I suggest it is better for BWI to buy some "similar" insurance instead of share buy back..............
Nu Skin said the settlement is expected to be paid by its insurance company and therefore does not expect it to affect earnings.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nu Skin Pays $47M To End Investor Row Over China Ops
https://www.law360.com/articles/764650/n...-china-ops
By Y. Peter Kang
Law360, Los Angeles (February 26, 2016, 10:11 PM EST) -- Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. agreed to pay $47 million to resolve a putative shareholder class action accusing the multilevel marketing provider of skin care products of misleading investors about the legality of its operations in China, according to documents filed Friday with securities regulators.
Under terms of the settlement, which were revealed in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the company agreed on Feb. 22 to pay $47 million to end claims brought by investors who purchased Nu Skin stock from May 2011 to January 2014. Nu Skin said the settlement is expected to be paid by its insurance company and therefore does not expect it to affect earnings.
The proposed deal, which requires court approval, is not an admission of any wrongdoing on Nu Skin’s part, according to the filing. On Thursday, the parties jointly withdrew the investors’ motion for class certification, saying they had reached a deal in principle and expect to ask the court to approve the settlement in the coming weeks, according to Utah federal court records.
Representatives for the parties didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.
If approved, the deal would end a consolidated securities suit filed in January 2014accusing Nu Skin of concealing that its China operations were running afoul of the country's law.
The complaint alleges the Provo, Utah-based company, which is heavily dependent on China for a significant amount of its growth and revenue, issued glowing statements on multiple occasions about its rising sales in Greater China, but hid its fraudulent sales practices and noncompliance with Chinese law.
Shareholders said the truth emerged when China’s People’s Daily newspaper, which serves as a mouthpiece for the country’s ruling communist party, published a report in January 2014 saying that Nu Skin is operating in violation of Chinese law and is suspected to be an illegal pyramid scheme.
The state-backed paper further claimed that Nu Skin brainwashes its trainees and is selling 20 more products than allowed by the Chinese government. Following the report’s publication, China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce announced an investigation into Nu Skin, according to the complaint.
One day later, China’s Ministry of Commerce said it was also investigating Nu Skin, the investors said. News of the Chinese probes caused Nu Skin’s stock to tank by 44 percent, according to the suit.
In Friday’s filing, Nu Skin said it expects final court approval of the settlement by mid-2016.
The proposed class is represented by Jonathan Gardner, Mark S. Goldman and Christine M. Fox of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Heidi G. Goebel of Goebel Anderson PC.
Nu Skin is represented by James G. Kreissman and Alexis Coll-Very of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Robert S. Clark and Daniel E. Barnett of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless.
The case is Freedman v. Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. et al., case number 2:14-cv-00033, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
Nu Skin said the settlement is expected to be paid by its insurance company and therefore does not expect it to affect earnings.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nu Skin Pays $47M To End Investor Row Over China Ops
https://www.law360.com/articles/764650/n...-china-ops
By Y. Peter Kang
Law360, Los Angeles (February 26, 2016, 10:11 PM EST) -- Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. agreed to pay $47 million to resolve a putative shareholder class action accusing the multilevel marketing provider of skin care products of misleading investors about the legality of its operations in China, according to documents filed Friday with securities regulators.
Under terms of the settlement, which were revealed in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the company agreed on Feb. 22 to pay $47 million to end claims brought by investors who purchased Nu Skin stock from May 2011 to January 2014. Nu Skin said the settlement is expected to be paid by its insurance company and therefore does not expect it to affect earnings.
The proposed deal, which requires court approval, is not an admission of any wrongdoing on Nu Skin’s part, according to the filing. On Thursday, the parties jointly withdrew the investors’ motion for class certification, saying they had reached a deal in principle and expect to ask the court to approve the settlement in the coming weeks, according to Utah federal court records.
Representatives for the parties didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.
If approved, the deal would end a consolidated securities suit filed in January 2014accusing Nu Skin of concealing that its China operations were running afoul of the country's law.
The complaint alleges the Provo, Utah-based company, which is heavily dependent on China for a significant amount of its growth and revenue, issued glowing statements on multiple occasions about its rising sales in Greater China, but hid its fraudulent sales practices and noncompliance with Chinese law.
Shareholders said the truth emerged when China’s People’s Daily newspaper, which serves as a mouthpiece for the country’s ruling communist party, published a report in January 2014 saying that Nu Skin is operating in violation of Chinese law and is suspected to be an illegal pyramid scheme.
The state-backed paper further claimed that Nu Skin brainwashes its trainees and is selling 20 more products than allowed by the Chinese government. Following the report’s publication, China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce announced an investigation into Nu Skin, according to the complaint.
One day later, China’s Ministry of Commerce said it was also investigating Nu Skin, the investors said. News of the Chinese probes caused Nu Skin’s stock to tank by 44 percent, according to the suit.
In Friday’s filing, Nu Skin said it expects final court approval of the settlement by mid-2016.
The proposed class is represented by Jonathan Gardner, Mark S. Goldman and Christine M. Fox of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Heidi G. Goebel of Goebel Anderson PC.
Nu Skin is represented by James G. Kreissman and Alexis Coll-Very of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Robert S. Clark and Daniel E. Barnett of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless.
The case is Freedman v. Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. et al., case number 2:14-cv-00033, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
Research, research and research - Please do your own due diligence (DYODD) before you invest - Any reliance on my analysis is SOLELY at your own risk.
