Boohoo Share Discussion Threads

[ukneonboy] 21/10/2021 12:59

JUST IN CASE ANYONE MISSED THIS PREVIOUSLY




* * * BREAKING NEWS * * *

The U.S. Federal Court’s review of the papers recently indicated that one of the parties has not complied with the letter or spirit of Local Rule 37 and that one of the parties does not appear to be making good faith efforts to resolve the discovery (evidence) dispute.

NO PRIZES FOR GUESSING WHO THAT MIGHT BE …………………….

“Parties may obtain discovery (evidence) regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”

“Generally, the purpose of discovery is to remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve the dispute.”

WHICH BASICALLY MEANS, THE FEDERAL COURT IS STILL AWAITING KAMANI’S UNDER OATH PERSONAL TESTIMONY IN:

Farid Khan v. Boohoo.com USA, Inc
Haya Hilton v. PrettyLittleThing.com USA, Inc
Olivia Lee v. NastyGal.com USA, Inc

Specifically relating to SERIOUS allegations that Boohoo PLC and its U.S. subsidiaries have engaged in deceptive marketing practices in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code § 17200, False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code § 17500, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 and fraud, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment, to the detriment of U.S. consumers.

[ammu12] 21/10/2021 12:59

This idiot needs help

[dissentingvoices] 21/10/2021 12:57

So you wanna do TRIAL of KAMANI & BOOHOO by ADVFN message board do you ???

Well, Good Luck with that one.



I'm happy to leave it to the US Class Action Lawyers, namely Mr Ibrahim and Mr Almadini and the Federal Court Judge, Mr Wu to finish Kamani !!!

[slinkyj] 21/10/2021 12:32

The real situation. Ignore the de -rampers The defendants argue that despite claiming that they "fell victim to the deception" of the retailers' various sale events, they do not allege any tangible harm. Khan, for instance, claims that he was duped by Boohoo's "50% Off Everything" advertising, but "does not allege that he is out-of-pocket anything, e.g., that his $6 t- shirts were worth less than the rock-bottom price he paid for them." With that in mind, Boohoo and co. argue that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their suits since "they do not plausibly allege that they suffered any damages, i.e., that the price they paid was more than the value received." Beyond the plaintiffs' failure to establish that they were harmed by the defendants' "false advertising," the defendants claim that the court should strike down the sweeping class allegations for products that Kahn, Hilton, and Lee never actually purchased. "For example, although she only bought one $24-pair of shoes on the Nasty Gal website, Lee seeks to serve as a class representative for claims covering every product sold on the Nasty Gal website to every customer in the U.S. over the past four years," the defendants assert. The same for Hilton, who only "bought seven items," and Khan, who bought twelve items, seven of which were "the same $6 t-shirt." As such, they "do not have standing to assert claims related to products they never purchased and online advertising they never saw or relied upon," according to counsel for Boohoo, PrettyLittleThing and Nasty Gal. Still yet, the retailer defendants claim that the plaintiffs have filed to "satisfy [the] 'heightened' pleading standard that must 'state with particularity the circumstances surrounding fraud.'" Citing an earlier decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Rael v. New York & Company), which refused to side with a plaintiff that alleged price fraud on the basis that it is not enough to merely allege that a product was sold was "not sold at the [original, pre-sale] price in the three months before [the plaintiff's] purchase," the defendants argue that the "same theory – and the same allegations – [are] advanced by the plaintiffs here" and should similarly be dismissed by the court. With the foregoing in mind, and given that plaintiffs alleged failure to adequately plead their unjust enrichment claim ("When a plaintiff fails 'to sufficiently plead an actionable misrepresentation or omission, his [or her] restitution claim must be dismissed.'"), the defendants ask the court to grant their motion to dismiss and strike

[millennialinvestor] 21/10/2021 11:47

The FCA are on to you Rentaboy

Be warned about your paid de-ramping and false information and lies!!!

[melegramforttongo] 21/10/2021 10:51

The other day whilst running on the beach I noticed some losing investors drowning after falling in from their paddle board …
I quickly scanned the beach to check where everyone was then I screamed EMERGENCY EMERGENCY !!!

I quickly ushered everyone off the beach and told them a Portuguese man o war had been washed up .

Whilst saving many on the beach from possible fatal stings , no one came to the rescue of the losing investors .

I am glad I did the right thing .

[millennialinvestor] 21/10/2021 10:44

bum2suck1 giving boo the thumbs up!

up thy booeth longeth

[buy2sell1] 21/10/2021 10:32

CAVEAT EMPTOR 👍👍👍

Expect more bad news soon

[millennialinvestor] 21/10/2021 09:05

I need a leather pinup bra

[ihavelosteverything] 21/10/2021 08:55

JAIL MAYBE NOT

PUBLIC HUMILIATION?

[melegramforttongo] 21/10/2021 08:44

Can you imagine if you shorted this from 297 ??

Hmmm hmmm

Ammu …. Can you imagine how that would feel ??

😂😂😂😂8514;😂ԅ14;

Oh how I love to taunt you

[melegramforttongo] 21/10/2021 08:43

Let’s not forget that the loser also lost :-

Password and email to portfolio so has no way of being able to check .
However , this is a blessing in disguise as the losers portfolio is showing a negative balance .

Don’t ask me how that’s possible , but it just is .

[ukneonboy] 21/10/2021 08:41

THIS IS NOT FAKE NEWS.....
===========================

$100 Million Class Action Lawsuits in California


THIS IS NOT FAKE NEWS .....
============================

Farid Khan v. Boohoo.com USA, Inc
Haya Hilton v. PrettyLittleThing.com USA, Inc
Olivia Lee v. NastyGal.com USA, Inc


THIS IS NOT FAKE NEWS.....
============================

SERIOUS allegations that Boohoo PLC and its U.S. subsidiaries have engaged in deceptive marketing practices in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code § 17200, False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code § 17500, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 and fraud, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment, to the detriment of U.S. consumers.


THIS IS NOT FAKE NEWS....
===========================

The Defendants (Boohoo & NastyGal & PrettyLittleThing) were required to file a status update with the Federal Court in California on or before October 20, 2021, (YESTERDAY) regarding the scheduling of Mahmud Kamani's under Oath deposition consistent with the Court's previous Order.





THESE ARE FACTS THAT KAMANI DID NOT WARN SHAREHOLDERS ABOUT !!
==============================================================

These Court Cases actually started in April 2020 and are still ongoing now !!!
===========================================================================

[transhoneyqueens] 21/10/2021 08:40

Zero director buys ... the insiders must be expecting bad news then lol - 100p

[hotaimstocks] 21/10/2021 08:39

100m fake sales lawsuit is very real unlike my Burton suit ... fake sales lead by the founder hmmmmm ... 150p soon

[ihavelosteverything] 21/10/2021 08:36

UKNEONBOY
it is 4-5 months old news, lol

CRIMINAL

[ukneonboy] 21/10/2021 08:29

THIS IS NOT FAKE NEWS.....
===========================

$100 Million Class Action Lawsuits in California


THIS IS NOT FAKE NEWS .....
============================

Farid Khan v. Boohoo.com USA, Inc
Haya Hilton v. PrettyLittleThing.com USA, Inc
Olivia Lee v. NastyGal.com USA, Inc


THIS IS NOT FAKE NEWS.....
============================

SERIOUS allegations that Boohoo PLC and its U.S. subsidiaries have engaged in deceptive marketing practices in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code § 17200, False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code § 17500, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 and fraud, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment, to the detriment of U.S. consumers.


THIS IS NOT FAKE NEWS....
===========================

The Defendants (Boohoo & NastyGal & PrettyLittleThing) were required to file a status update with the Federal Court in California on or before October 20, 2021, (YESTERDAY) regarding the scheduling of Mahmud Kamani's under Oath deposition consistent with the Court's previous Order.





THIS IS THE REAL NEWS THAT KAMANI DID NOT WARN SHAREHOLDERS ABOUT !!
====================================================================