Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/05/2017 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: January 26, 2017

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Western Union’s fraud prevention efforts did not comply with applicable laws; (2) Western Union willfully failed to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program; (3) Western Union aided and abetted wire fraud; (4) for at least five years, Western Union knew of agents structuring transactions designed to avoid the reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act; (5) Western Union was not compliant with its regulatory responsibilities; (6) between 2004 and 2012, Western Union violated U.S. laws—the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-fraud statutes—by processing hundreds of thousands of transactions for Western Union agents and others involved in an international consumer fraud scheme; (7) Western Union knew of but failed to take corrective action against Western Union agents involved in or facilitating fraud-related transactions; (8) between January 1, 2004 and August 29, 2015, Western Union received at least 550,928 complaints about fraud-induced money transfers, totaling at least $632,721,044; and (9) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On March 31, 2017, this case was transferred to the District of Colorado.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Misc. Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: WU
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: D. Colorado
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00650
JUDGE: Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
DATE FILED: 01/26/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/24/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/19/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Colorado
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00809
JUDGE: Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
DATE FILED: 03/31/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/24/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/19/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date