NEW YORK, Nov. 02, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against YayYo, Inc. (“YayYo” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: YAYO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under 20-cv-08591, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired YayYo common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with YayYo’s November 13, 2019, initial public offering (the “IPO” or “Offering”), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). If you are a shareholder who purchased YayYo common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with YayYo’s November 13, 2019, IPO, you have until November 9, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. [Click here for information about joining the class action]YayYo, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in developing vehicle rental platform in the United States. It operates Rideshare Platform, an online peer-to-peer booking platform that rents standard passenger vehicles to self-employed ridesharing drivers; and manages a fleet of standard passenger vehicles to be rented directly to drivers in the ridesharing economy through the Rideshare Platform. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendant Ram El-Batrawi (“El-Batrawi”) continued to exercise supervision, authority, and control over YayYo and was intimately involved, on a day-to-day basis, with the business, operations, and finances of the company, including assisting the Underwriter Defendants in marketing YayYo’s IPO; (2) defendant El-Batrawi never sold the 12,525,000 “Private Shares” and continued to own a controlling interest in YayYo despite the NASDAQ’s insistence that he retain less than a 10% equity ownership interest in connection with the listing agreement; (3) defendants promised certain creditors of YayYo that in exchange to their agreeing to purchase shares in the IPO – in order to permit the Underwriter defendants to close the IPO – YayYo would repurchase those shares after the IPO; (4) defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased by creditors of YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds: (5) YayYo owned its former President, CEO, and Director a half of million dollars at the time of the IPO; (6) YayYo owed SRAX, Inc. (formerly Social Reality, Inc.) $426,286 in unpaid social media costs, most of which was more than a year overdue as payment had been delayed while YayYo attempted to complete its IPO; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.On January 13, 2020, YayYo filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) a Form 8-K announcing that “[o]n January 10, 2020, YayYo Inc. [] entered into an Executive Employment Agreement [] with the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Jonathan Rosen (“Rosen”), pursuant to which Mr. Rosen will continue to serve as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer for one year or until terminated in accordance with the Agreement.”On January 24, 2020, YayYo filed an action for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction against Defendant El-Batrawi in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 20STCP00309, alleging in pertinent part: Despite leaving the Company following concerns from NASDAQ regarding his involvement in the day-to-day operations of YayYo in September 2019, Defendant [El-Batrawi] has engaged in a continuous course of actions misrepresenting himself as affiliated with, speaking on behalf of, and authorized or empowered by YayYo. In so doing, Defendant [El-Batrawi] has purported to bind the Company to contracts, direct its employees, change its website, and event to attempted to sell the Company to its competitors.In a declaration filed with YayYo’s complaint in support of a temporary restraining order, Defendant Rosen testified that despite having promised in September 2019 in connection with his resignation to have “no formal or informal affiliation between the Company and [El-Batrawi], expect [sic] for [his] minority ownership (less than 10%) in the Company” (emphasis in original), “[Defendant El-Batrawi] [had] continue[d] to operate and hold himself out as if a director or officer of YayYo, or as an otherwise authorized representative of the same.” Defendant Rosen further testified that despite the Registration Statement having expressly stated that Defendant El-Batrawi had already sold the 12,525,000 shares of YayYo prior to the IPO, in reality “Defendant El-Batrawi ha[d] failed and/or refused to sell his shares of stock in the Company . . . .” Defendant Rosen further admitted this had all been going on since September 2019, well before the IPO, including testifying in pertinent part that “[s]ince [September 2019], Defendant El-Batrawi has engaged in a continuous and escalating pattern of behavior destructive to YayYo . . . .” Defendant Rosen testified that Defendant El-Batrawi’s misconduct between September 2019 and January 2020 had included, among other things, contacting competitors, suppliers, and vendors of YayYo and negotiating with them as a representative of YayYo; meeting with financiers and investment firms about investing in YayYo and claiming to represent YayYo; hiring a public relations firm for YayYo and producing and airing commercials for YayYo on the Fox Business Channel; attempting to hire two marketing firms for YayYo; and directing that changes be made to YayYo’s website.On January 27, 2020, YayYo filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing that Defendants Jeffrey J. Guzy, Christopher Miglino, and Paul Richter had been replaced as Board members and that Defendant Rosen was no longer the CEO of YayYo.On February 10, 2020, YayYo issued a press release entitled “YayYo, Inc. Announces Intention to Voluntarily Delist Its Common Stock From the NASDAQ Capital Market Effective February 20, 2020” disclosing that the new Board would delist YayYo common stock from the NASDAQ.On February 11, 2020, SRAX filed a collection action against YayYo in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 20STCV05559, alleging that SRAX had provided media services to the Company dating back to 2018, and claiming breach of contract and related causes of action. SRAX alleged that YayYo then owed it $645,286—including $426,286 for services rendered prior to time of the IPO. In its complaint, SRAX alleged that YayYo claimed to be “unable to pay” for the services prior to the IPO “apparently due to a delay in its [IPO].” Though the invoices for the services attached to the complaint filed by SRAX were signed by Defendant El-Batrawi, an email attached to the complaint dated January 24, 2020 from Defendant Rosen stated that other than $50,000 that had apparently been paid to SRAX from the IPO proceeds on January 23, 2020, YayYo would be unable to pay the rest of the outstanding bill until it obtained additional outside financing.On March 3, 2020, former YayYo President, CEO, and Director Anthony Davis filed a complaint for damages, declaratory relief, failure to pay wages in violation of labor code 201, et. seq., violation of California’s Unfair Competition Laws (Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.), breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation and fraud, and promissory fraud against YayYo.On April 28, 2020, FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC (“FirstFire”) filed a complaint against underwriters for the IPO in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. l:20-cv-03327. Among other things, FirstFire alleges that the Registration Statement used to conduct the IPO was materially false and misleading because it concealed Defendant El-Batrawi’s ongoing control over the company and its IPO process. FirstFire further alleges that when the underwriters for the IPO were unable to raise the full $10 million required by NASDAQ to close the IPO, Defendant El-Batrawi fabricated a $1.2 million commitment purportedly from a trust, which turned out to be a lie. FirstFire also alleges that the underwriters for the IPO and Defendant El-Batrawi solicited creditors and shareholders to invest more money to close the IPO, and “sought to sweeten the attraction of such further investment” by agreeing that YayYo would “immediately” pay them back from the IPO proceeds, an “unlawful act” that would “materially misrepresent the Offering and fraudulently mislead investors[.]” FirstFire further alleges that the underwriters for the IPO told investors that YayYo planned to use the IPO proceeds to purchase vehicles, as well as for general corporate purposes, including working capital and sales and marketing activities, but that in reality, YayYo had no intention to do so.Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material adverse facts omitted from the Company’s Registration Statement, YayYo’s stock price has fallen significantly below its IPO price, damaging Plaintiff and Class members.As of the filing of this Complaint, YayYo’s stock last closed at $0.29 per share on September 17, 2020, representing a 92.75% decline from the price the stock was offered at in the IPO.The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
OTTAWA – Canada’s unemployment rate held steady at 6.5 per cent last month as hiring remained weak across the economy.
Statistics Canada’s labour force survey on Friday said employment rose by a modest 15,000 jobs in October.
Business, building and support services saw the largest gain in employment.
Meanwhile, finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing experienced the largest decline.
Many economists see weakness in the job market continuing in the short term, before the Bank of Canada’s interest rate cuts spark a rebound in economic growth next year.
Despite ongoing softness in the labour market, however, strong wage growth has raged on in Canada. Average hourly wages in October grew 4.9 per cent from a year ago, reaching $35.76.
Friday’s report also shed some light on the financial health of households.
According to the agency, 28.8 per cent of Canadians aged 15 or older were living in a household that had difficulty meeting financial needs – like food and housing – in the previous four weeks.
That was down from 33.1 per cent in October 2023 and 35.5 per cent in October 2022, but still above the 20.4 per cent figure recorded in October 2020.
People living in a rented home were more likely to report difficulty meeting financial needs, with nearly four in 10 reporting that was the case.
That compares with just under a quarter of those living in an owned home by a household member.
Immigrants were also more likely to report facing financial strain last month, with about four out of 10 immigrants who landed in the last year doing so.
That compares with about three in 10 more established immigrants and one in four of people born in Canada.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.
The Canadian Institute for Health Information says health-care spending in Canada is projected to reach a new high in 2024.
The annual report released Thursday says total health spending is expected to hit $372 billion, or $9,054 per Canadian.
CIHI’s national analysis predicts expenditures will rise by 5.7 per cent in 2024, compared to 4.5 per cent in 2023 and 1.7 per cent in 2022.
This year’s health spending is estimated to represent 12.4 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. Excluding two years of the pandemic, it would be the highest ratio in the country’s history.
While it’s not unusual for health expenditures to outpace economic growth, the report says this could be the case for the next several years due to Canada’s growing population and its aging demographic.
Canada’s per capita spending on health care in 2022 was among the highest in the world, but still less than countries such as the United States and Sweden.
The report notes that the Canadian dental and pharmacare plans could push health-care spending even further as more people who previously couldn’t afford these services start using them.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.
Canadian Press health coverage receives support through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. CP is solely responsible for this content.
As Canadians wake up to news that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the president-elect’s protectionist stance is casting a spotlight on what effect his second term will have on Canada-U.S. economic ties.
Some Canadian business leaders have expressed worry over Trump’s promise to introduce a universal 10 per cent tariff on all American imports.
A Canadian Chamber of Commerce report released last month suggested those tariffs would shrink the Canadian economy, resulting in around $30 billion per year in economic costs.
More than 77 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S.
Canada’s manufacturing sector faces the biggest risk should Trump push forward on imposing broad tariffs, said Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters president and CEO Dennis Darby. He said the sector is the “most trade-exposed” within Canada.
“It’s in the U.S.’s best interest, it’s in our best interest, but most importantly for consumers across North America, that we’re able to trade goods, materials, ingredients, as we have under the trade agreements,” Darby said in an interview.
“It’s a more complex or complicated outcome than it would have been with the Democrats, but we’ve had to deal with this before and we’re going to do our best to deal with it again.”
American economists have also warned Trump’s plan could cause inflation and possibly a recession, which could have ripple effects in Canada.
It’s consumers who will ultimately feel the burden of any inflationary effect caused by broad tariffs, said Darby.
“A tariff tends to raise costs, and it ultimately raises prices, so that’s something that we have to be prepared for,” he said.
“It could tilt production mandates. A tariff makes goods more expensive, but on the same token, it also will make inputs for the U.S. more expensive.”
A report last month by TD economist Marc Ercolao said research shows a full-scale implementation of Trump’s tariff plan could lead to a near-five per cent reduction in Canadian export volumes to the U.S. by early-2027, relative to current baseline forecasts.
Retaliation by Canada would also increase costs for domestic producers, and push import volumes lower in the process.
“Slowing import activity mitigates some of the negative net trade impact on total GDP enough to avoid a technical recession, but still produces a period of extended stagnation through 2025 and 2026,” Ercolao said.
Since the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement came into effect in 2020, trade between Canada and the U.S. has surged by 46 per cent, according to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.
With that deal is up for review in 2026, Canadian Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Candace Laing said the Canadian government “must collaborate effectively with the Trump administration to preserve and strengthen our bilateral economic partnership.”
“With an impressive $3.6 billion in daily trade, Canada and the United States are each other’s closest international partners. The secure and efficient flow of goods and people across our border … remains essential for the economies of both countries,” she said in a statement.
“By resisting tariffs and trade barriers that will only raise prices and hurt consumers in both countries, Canada and the United States can strengthen resilient cross-border supply chains that enhance our shared economic security.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 6, 2024.
