Class Action Reports


Levi & Korsinsky Announces HEXO Class Action Investigation; HEXO Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces HEXO Class Action Investigation; HEXO Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

December 2, 2019

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a HEXO class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased HEXO Corp. (HEXO) securities between January 25, 2019 and November 15, 2019. For more on the HEXO Class Action please contact us today.

According to the HEXO lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) HEXO’s reported inventory was misstated as the Company was failing to write down or write off obsolete product that no longer had value; (2) HEXO was engaging in channel-stuffing in order to inflate its revenue figures and meet or exceed revenue guidance provided to investors; (3) HEXO was cultivating cannabis at its facility in Niagara, Ontario that was not appropriately licensed by Health Canada; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE HEXO CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hexo-corp-loss-form?wire=9&prid=4629

If you suffered a loss in HEXO you have until January 27, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces The RealReal Class Action Investigation; REAL Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces The RealReal Class Action Investigation; REAL Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a REAL class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased The RealReal, Inc. (REAL) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in June 27, 2019. For more on the The RealReal Class Action please contact us today.

According to the The RealReal lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s employees received little training on how to spot fake items; (2) the Company’s strict quotas on its employees exacerbated product authentication issues; (3) consequently, the potential for counterfeit or mislabeled items to make it through Company’s authentication process was higher than disclosed; and (4) as a result, 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.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE REAL CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-realreal-inc-loss-form?wire=9&prid=4617

If you suffered a loss in The RealReal you have until January 24, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Resideo Technologies Class Action Investigation; REZI Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Resideo Technologies Class Action Investigation; REZI Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a REZI class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Resideo Technologies, Inc. (REZI) securities between October 29, 2018 and October 22, 2019. For more on the Resideo Technologies Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Resideo Technologies lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the negative operational effects of the Company’s spin-off from Honeywell International Inc. were more substantial and persistent than disclosed and had negatively affected Resideo’s product sales, supply chain, and gross margins, putting the Company’s FY19 financial forecasts at risk; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial guidance lacked a reasonable basis and the Company was not on track to make its FY19 guidance as claimed.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE REZI CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/resideo-technologies-inc-loss-form?wire=9&prid=4609

If you suffered a loss in Resideo Technologies you have until January 7, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Yunji Class Action Investigation; YJ Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Yunji Class Action Investigation; YJ Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a YJ class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Yunji Inc. (YJ) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in May 2019. For more on the Yunji Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Yunji lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was shifting certain of its sales to its marketplace platform; (2) this supply chain restructuring was likely to disrupt Yunji’s relationships with suppliers; (3) this supply chain restructuring was likely to have an adverse impact on the Company’s financial results; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE YJ CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/yunji-inc-loss-form?prid=4602&wire=9

If you suffered a loss in Yunji you have until January 13, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Energy Transfer Class Action Investigation; ET Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Energy Transfer Class Action Investigation; ET Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a ET class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Energy Transfer LP, (ET) securities between February 25, 2017 and November 11, 2019. For more on the Energy Transfer Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Energy Transfer lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Energy Transfer’s permits to conduct the Mariner East pipeline project in Pennsylvania were secured via bribery and/or other improper conduct; (2) the foregoing misconduct increased the risk that the Partnership and/or certain of its employees would be subject to government and/or regulatory action, thereby depreciating the Partnership’s unit value; and (3) as a result, the Partnership’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE ET CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/energy-transfer-lp-loss-form?prid=4588&wire=9

If you suffered a loss in Energy Transfer you have until January 20, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Sealed Air Corporation Class Action Investigation; SEE Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Sealed Air Class Action Investigation; SEE Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a SEE class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Sealed Air Corporation, (SEE) securities between November 5, 2014 and August 6, 2018. For more on the Sealed Air Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Sealed Air lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sealed Air had hired its auditor, E&Y, pursuant to a conflicted and improper process and in order to help facilitate defendants’ efforts to engage in accounting fraud; (2) Sealed Air’s deduction of $1.49 billion in connection with the Settlement was indefensible and done for the improper purpose of artificially inflating the Company’s financial results; (3) Sealed Air had artificially inflated its earnings, cash flows, and operating income during the Class Period; (4) as a result of the above, Sealed Air’s Class Period financial statements were materially false and misleading and not prepared in conformance with GAAP; and (5) as a result of the above, Sealed Air’s statements regarding its financial results, business, and prospects were materially misleading.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SEE CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sealed-air-corporation-loss-form?wire=9&prid=4579

If you suffered a loss in Sealed Air you have until December 31, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Plantronics Class Action Investigation; PLT Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Plantronics Class Action Investigation; PLT Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a PLT class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Plantronics, Inc. (PLT) securities between July 2, 2018 and November 5, 2019. For more on the Plantronics Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Plantronics lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had engaged in channel stuffing to artificially boost sales; (2) the Company’s internal control over inventory levels was not effective; (3) the Company had not adequately monitored inventory levels ahead of multiple product launches, where the new models would displace demand for aging products; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PLT CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/plantronics-inc-loss-form?wire=9&prid=4578

If you suffered a loss in Plantronics you have until January 13, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Aurora Cannabis Class Action Investigation; ACB Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Aurora Cannabis Class Action Investigation; ACB Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a ACB class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Aurora Cannabis Inc. (ACB) securities between September 11, 2019 and November 14, 2019. For more on the Aurora Cannabis Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Aurora Cannabis lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as opposed to the Company’s representations, Aurora’s revenue would decline in its first quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September 30, 2019; (2) the Company would halt construction on its Aurora Nordic 2 and Aurora Sun facilities; and (3) 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.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE ACB CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-form?prid=4567&wire=9

If you suffered a loss in Aurora Cannabis you have until January 21, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Grubhub Class Action Investigation; GRUB Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Grubhub Class Action Investigation; GRUB Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a GRUB class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Grubhub Inc. GRUB) securities between July 30, 2019 and October 28, 2019. For more on the Grubhub Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Grubhub lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) customer orders were actually declining, despite the massive investments that the Company had made to spur demand for and use of its platform; (2) Grubhub’s new customer additions were generating significantly lower revenues as compared to historic cohorts because these customers were more prone to using competitor platforms; (3) Grubhub’s vaunted business model under which it secured exclusive partnerships had failed, and Grubhub needed to engage in the same aggressive nonpartnered sales tactics embraced by its competitors to generate significant revenue growth; (4) Grubhub was required to spend substantial additional capital in order to grow revenues and retain market share in the face of heightened competitive dynamics and market saturation, eviscerating the Company’s profitability; and (5) Grubhub was tracking tens of millions of dollars below its revenue and earnings guidance and such guidance lacked any reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE GRUB CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/grubhub-inc-loss-form?prid=4567&wire=9

If you suffered a loss in Grubhub you have until January 20, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Canopy Growth Corporation Class Action Investigation; CGC Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Canopy Growth Corporation Class Action Investigation; CGC Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a CGC class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC) securities between June 21, 2019 and November 13, 2019. For more on the Canopy Growth Corporation Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Canopy Growth Corporation lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing weak demand for its softgel and oil products; (2) as a result, the Company would be forced to take a CA$32.7 million restructuring charge due to poor sales, excessive returns, and excess inventory; and (3) 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.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CGC CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/canopy-growth-corporation-loss-form?prid=4567&wire=9

If you suffered a loss in Canopy Growth Corporation you have until January 20, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Quad/Graphics Class Action Investigation; QUAD Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Quad/Graphics Class Action Investigation; QUAD Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

November 14, 2019

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a QUAD class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Quad/Graphics, Inc. (QUAD) securities between February 21, 2018 and October 29, 2019. For more on the Quad/Graphics Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Quad/Graphics lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s book business in United States was underperforming; (2) as a result, the Company was likely to divest its book business; (3) the Company was unreasonably vulnerable to decreases in market prices; (4) to remain financially flexible while market prices decreased, the Company was likely to cut its quarterly dividend and expand its cost reduction programs; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE QUAD CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/quad-graphics-inc-loss-form?wire=9&prid=4336

If you suffered a loss in Quad/Graphics you have until January 6, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Pareteum Class Action Investigation; TEUM Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Pareteum Class Action Investigation; TEUM Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a TEUM class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Pareteum Corporation, (TEUM) securities between December 14, 2017 and October 21, 2019. For more on the Pareteum Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Pareteum lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) it  was  not  true  that  the  Company’s  purported success was the result of hyper-demand for Pareteum’s unique products or exceptional service,  or  the  Company’s  competent  management;  but,  in  fact,  Defendants  had  propped  up  the  Company’s  results  by  manipulating  Pareteum’s  accounting  for  revenues, income, and the important Backlog metric; (2) Defendants had  materially  overstated  the  Company’s  profitability  by  failing  to  properly  account  for  the  Company’s results of operations and by artificially inflating the Company’s financial results; (3) it was not true that Pareteum contained even the most minimally adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls necessary to assure that Pareteum’s reported financial statements were true, accurate, and/or reliable; (4) as a result, it also was not true that the Company’s financial statements and reports were prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules; and (5) as  a  result  of  the  aforementioned  adverse  conditions, Defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that  Pareteum  was  operating  according  to  plan,  or  that  Pareteum  could  achieve  the  guidance  sponsored and/or endorsed by Defendants.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TEUM CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pareteum-corporation-loss-form?wire=9&prid=4336

If you suffered a loss in Pareteum you have until December 23, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces iRobot Class Action Investigation; IRBT Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces iRobot Class Action Investigation; IRBT Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a IRBT class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased iRobot Corporation, (IRBT) securities between November 21, 2016 and October 22, 2019. For more on the iRobot Class Action please contact us today.

According to the iRobot lawsuit, defendants misrepresented the reason for iRobot’s acquisitions of Tokyo-based Sales on Demand Corporation and privately-held Robopolis SAS, which was to control the Company’s largest distributors so that defendants could inflate sales and revenue figures by stuffing the channel. Defendants further misled investors by repeatedly telling them throughout the Class Period that the Company was seeing continued double-digit revenue growth, and by attributing the growth to increased demand for the Roomba vacuums, when in reality defendants were engaging in channel-stuffing to artificially boost sales. Defendants also misstated that the Company’s channel inventory levels had not changed and would not change dramatically from quarter to quarter or year over year, when in fact iRobot was deliberately stuffing the channel in order to claim false revenue growth.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE IRBT CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irobot-corporation-loss-form?wire=9&prid=4335

If you suffered a loss in iRobot you have until December 23, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Under Armour Class Action Investigation; UA Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Under Armour Class Action Investigation; UA Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a UA class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Under Armour, Inc. (UA) securities between August 3, 2016 and November 1, 2019. For more on the Under Armour Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Under Armour lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to appear healthier, including to keep pace with their long-running year-over-year 20% net revenue growth; (2) undisclosed to the investing public, the Company had been under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since at least July 2017; and (3) 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.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE UA CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/under-armour-inc-loss-form?wire=9&prid=4333

If you suffered a loss in Under Armour you have until January 6, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Azz Class Action Investigation; AZZ Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Azz Class Action Investigation; AZZ Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a AZZ class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Azz, Inc. (AZZ) securities between July 3, 2018 and October 8, 2019. For more on the Azz Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Azz lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were not effective; (2) the Company improperly implemented ASC 606 which resulted in improper revenue reconciliations; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE AZZ CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/azz-inc-loss-form?prid=4329&wire=9.

If you suffered a loss in Azz you have until January 3, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces UP Fintech Holding Class Action Investigation; TIGR Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces UP Fintech Holding Class Action Investigation; TIGR Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a TIGR class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased UP Fintech Holding Limited, (TIGR) (a) Fintech American Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019; or (b) Fintech securities between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019. For more on the UP Fintech Holding Class Action please contact us today.

According to the UP Fintech Holding lawsuit, (1) Fintech was experiencing a material decrease in commissions because of a negative trend related to risk-averse investors in the market; (2) Fintech was unable to absorb costs associated with the rapid growth of its business and its status as a publicly listed company on a U.S. exchange; (3) Fintech was incurring significant additional expenses related to, inter alia, employee headcount and employee compensation and benefits; (4) all of the foregoing had led to Fintech significantly increasing operating costs and expenses; and (5) as a result, the documents filed by the Company in connection with the initial public offering were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein, and the Company’s Class Period statements were likewise materially false and/or misleading.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TIGR CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/up-fintech-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=4316&wire=9.

If you suffered a loss in UP Fintech Holding you have until January 6, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Zendesk Class Action Investigation; ZEN Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Zendesk Class Action Investigation; ZEN Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a ZEN class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Zendesk, Inc. (ZEN) securities between February 6, 2019 and October 1, 2019. For more on the Zendesk Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Zendesk lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Zendesk’s clients had been subject to data breaches dating back to 2016; (2) Zendesk was experiencing slowing demand for its Software as a Service offerings, particularly in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia, due in large part to political uncertainty and China trade issues there; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Zendesk’s business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as defendants had led the market to believe during the Class Period.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE ZEN CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zendesk-inc-loss-form?prid=4320&wire=9.

If you suffered a loss in Zendesk you have until December 23, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Domo Class Action Investigation; DOMO Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Domo Class Action Investigation; DOMO Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a DOMO class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Domo, Inc. (DOMO) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering commenced on or around June 29, 2018; or (b) Domo securities between June 28, 2018 and September 5, 2019, both dates inclusive. For more on the Domo Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Domo lawsuit, (1) Domo was experiencing weakness in its enterprise and international businesses; (2) Domo’s billings growth had dramatically slowed; (3) all of the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company’s financial results; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein and the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE DOMO CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/domo-inc-loss-form?prid=4320&wire=9.

If you suffered a loss in Domo you have until December 16, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Twitter Class Action Investigation; TWTR Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Twitter Class Action Investigation; TWTR Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

November 7, 2019

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a TWTR class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Twitter, Inc. (TWTR) securities between August 6, 2019 and October 23, 2019. For more on the Twitter Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Twitter lawsuit, defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated Twitter’s common share price and operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Twitter common stock by misrepresenting the Company’s operating condition and future business prospects. The scheme was perpetrated by making positive statements about Twitter’s business while defendants knew, or disregarded with deliberate recklessness, certain adverse facts. When defendants’ prior misrepresentations were disclosed and became apparent to the market, the price of Twitter’s common stock fell precipitously.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TWTR CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/twitter-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Twitter you have until December 30, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces ProPetro Holding Class Action Investigation; PUMP Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces ProPetro Holding Class Action Investigation; PUMP Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

November 5, 2019

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a PUMP class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in March 2017 and/or between February 17, 2017 and August 8, 2019. For more on the ProPetro Holding Class Action please contact us today.

According to the ProPetro Holding lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s executive officers were improperly reimbursed for certain expenses; (2) the Company had engaged in certain undisclosed transactions with related parties; (3) the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; (4) the Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PUMP CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/propetro-holding-corp-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in ProPetro Holding you have until November 15, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Uniti Group Class Action Investigation; UNIT Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Uniti Group Class Action Investigation; UNIT Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a UNIT class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Uniti Group Inc. (UNIT) securities between April 20, 2015 and February 15, 2019. For more on the Uniti Group Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Uniti Group lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Uniti’s financial results were not sustainable because its customer Windstream had defaulted on its unsecured notes; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Uniti’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE UNIT CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/uniti-group-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Uniti Group you have until December 30, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Slack Technologies Class Action Investigation; WORK Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Slack Technologies Class Action Investigation; WORK Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a WORK class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Slack Technologies, Inc. (WORK) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in June 20, 2019. For more on the Slack Technologies Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Slack Technologies lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s Slack Platform was susceptible to recurring service-level disruptions; (2) such disruptions were increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to a larger user base; (3) the Company provides credits even if a customer was not specifically affected by service-level disruptions; (4) as a result, any service-level disruptions would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial results; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE WORK CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/slack-technologies-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Slack Technologies you have until November 18, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Uber Technologies Class Action Investigation; UBER Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Uber Technologies Class Action Investigation; UBER Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

October 25, 2019

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a UBER class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in May 10, 2019. For more on the Uber Technologies Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Uber Technologies lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the time of the initial public offering, Uber was rapidly increasing subsidies for customer’s rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused the Company’s sales and marketing expenses to swell; and (2) Defendants were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key areas that undermined the Company’s central growth opportunities.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE UBER CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/uber-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=4016&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Uber Technologies you have until December 3, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces The Chemours Company Class Action Investigation; CC Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces The Chemours Company Class Action Investigation; CC Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a CC class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased The Chemours Company, (CC) securities between February 16, 2017 and August 1, 2019. For more on the The Chemours Company Class Action please contact us today.

According to the The Chemours Company lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chemours had not appropriately accounted and accrued reserves for its environmental liabilities; (2) the possibility of costs exceeding accrued amounts was greater than the Company had represented to a point that could be material; (3) the Company’s policies, standards and procedures were not properly designed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm to people and the environment (4) Chemours’  handling, manufacture, use, and disposal of hazardous substances was not in accordance with applicable environmental laws and regulations; and (5) as a result of these misrepresentations, Chemours shares traded at artificially inflated prices.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CC CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-chemours-company-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in The Chemours Company you have until December 9, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Dropbox Class Action Investigation; DBX Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Dropbox Class Action Investigation; DBX Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a DBX class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Dropbox, Inc. (DBX) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in March 23, 2018. For more on the Dropbox Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Dropbox lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Dropbox had materially overstated its ability to monetize its user base; (2) Dropbox was facing worsening revenue trends, which were negatively impacting the Company at the time of the initial public offering (“IPO”); (3) Dropbox was tracking below its internal revenue and monetization targets at the time of the IPO; and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about Dropbox’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE DBX CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/dropbox-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Dropbox you have until December 3, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Infosys Class Action Investigation; INFY Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Infosys Class Action Investigation; INFY Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a INFY class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Infosys Limited, (INFY) securities between July 7, 2018 and October 20, 2019. For more on the Infosys Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Infosys lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly recognized revenues to inflate short-term profits; (2) Chief Executive Officer Salil Parekh bypassed reviews and approvals for large deals to avoid accounting scrutiny; (3) management pressured the Company’s finance team to hide information from auditors and the Company’s Board of Directors; and (4) as a result of the aforementioned misconduct, Defendants’ statements about Infosys’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE INFY CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/infosys-limited-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Infosys you have until December 23, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Ruhnn Holding Class Action Investigation; RUHN Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Ruhnn Holding Class Action Investigation; RUHN Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a RUHN class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in April 3, 2019. For more on the Ruhnn Holding Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Ruhnn Holding lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the time of the initial public offering (“IPO”), the number of Ruhnn’s online stores had declined by nearly 40%; (2) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn’s full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly 44%; (3) as a result, the Company’s net revenues derived from its full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about Ruhnn’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE RUHN CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Ruhnn Holding you have until December 6, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Capital One Financial Corporation Class Action Investigation; COF Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Capital One Financial Corporation Class Action Investigation; COF Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a COF class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Capital One Financial Corporation (COF) securities between February 2, 2018 and July 29, 2019. For more on the Capital One Financial Corporation Action please contact us today.

According to the Capital One Financial Corporation lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security protections, and its protection did not shield personal information against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the Company’s exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital One’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE COF CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/capital-one-financial-corporation-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Capital One Financial Corporation you have until December 2, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces ADTRAN Class Action Investigation; ADTN Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces ADTRAN Class Action Investigation; ADTN Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a ADTN class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN) securities between February 28, 2019 and October 9, 2019. For more on the ADTRAN Class Action please contact us today.

According to the ADTRAN lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a result, certain E&O reserves had been improperly reported; (3) as a result, the Company’s financial results for certain periods were misstated; (4) there would be a pause in shipments to the Company’s Latin American customer; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE ADTN CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/adtran-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in ADTRAN you have until December 16, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Overstock.com Class Action Investigation; OSTK Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Overstock.com Class Action Investigation; OSTK Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

October 9, 2019

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a OSTK class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) securities between May 9, 2019 and September 23, 2019. For more on the Overstock.com Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Overstock.com lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) it was not true that Overstock would be able to support the launch of its tZERO crypto currency with earnings or cash flow from its retail operations and that whatever marginal improvements defendants had made by cutting costs and engineering earnings could not be sustained so as to generate positive EBITDA or cash from operations necessary to support its crypto currency operations; (2) there were extreme additional risks and substantial volatility in the price of Company shares was foreseeable, given defendants’ undisclosed plan to offer its tZERO Preferred Share Dividend as a means to squeeze short sellers out of Overstock and to prevent them from holding legitimate positions in the Company; (3) there was a foreseeable likelihood that the Company’s ability to accomplish its intended short squeeze would embolden the SEC or even market participants, such as major brokerage houses, to act to prevent this market manipulation; (4) it was not true that Overstock contained adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls, such that Overstock’s quarterly reports filed with the SEC were true, accurate or reliable; (5) as a result of the foregoing, it also was not true that the Company’s quarterly reports filed with the SEC were prepared in accordance with GAAP ad SEC rules; and (6) as a result of the aforementioned adverse conditions which defendants failed to disclose, defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Overstock was operating according to plan, or that Overstock could achieve guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE OSTK CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/overstock-com-inc-loss-form?prid=3795&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Overstock.com you have until November 26, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 1000

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Altria Group Class Action Investigation; MO Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Altria Group Class Action Investigation; MO Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a MO class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Altria Group, Inc. (MO) securities between December 20, 2018 and September 24, 2019. For more on the Altria Group Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Altria Group lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into JUUL prior to the Company’s $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake, in JUUL; (2) Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or account for, material risks associated with JUUL’s products and marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products; (3) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny, negative publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria’s investment in JUUL would have a material negative impact on the Company’s reputation and operations; and (4) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MO CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-form?prid=3795&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Altria Group you have until December 2, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Smiledirectclub Class Action Investigation; SDC Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Smiledirectclub Class Action Investigation; SDC Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a SDC class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Smiledirectclub Inc. (SDC) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in September 2019. For more on the Smiledirectclub Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Smiledirectclub lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) administrative personnel, rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the Company’s customers and monitored their progress; (2) as a result, the Company’s practices did not qualify as teledentistry under applicable standards; (3) as a result, the Company was subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of dentistry; (4) the efficacy of the Company’s treatment was overstated; (5) the Company had concealed these deceptive marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SDC CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/smiledirectclub-inc-loss-form?prid=3817&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Smiledirectclub you have until December 2, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Covetrus Class Action Investigation; CVET Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Covetrus Class Action Investigation; CVET Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a CVET class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Covetrus, Inc. (CVET) securities between February 8, 2019 and August 12, 2019. For more on the Covetrus Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Covetrus lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had overstated its capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (2) Covetrus had understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein’s Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (3) Covetrus had understated its separation costs from Henry Schein; and (4) the Company understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company’s separation from Henry Schein.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CVET CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/covetrus-inc-loss-form?prid=3821&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Covetrus you have until November 29, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Myriad Genetics Class Action Investigation; MYGN Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Myriad Genetics Class Action Investigation; MYGN Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a MYGN class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN) securities between September 2, 2016 and August 13, 2019. For more on the Myriad Genetics Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Myriad Genetics lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Myriad’s product, GeneSight, lacked evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in their current form, including their purported benefits; (2) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had requested changes to GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test’s purported benefits; (3) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the FDA’s requested changes to GeneSight; (4) Myriad’s acquisition of Counsyl-and thereby, Foresight-caused the Company to incur the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually did, materialize into a material negative impact on the Company’s revenue; and (5) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MYGN CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/myriad-genetics-inc-loss-form?prid=3820&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Myriad Genetics you have until November 26, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Waitr Holdings Class Action Investigation; WTRH Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Waitr Holdings Class Action Investigation; WTRH Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a WTRH class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Waitr Holdings Inc. (WTRH) securities between May 17, 2018 and August 8, 2019. For more on the Waitr Holdings Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Waitr Holdings lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Waitr lacked a plan to achieve profitability and, contrary to the statements of Company founder Chris Meaux, Waitr was not at or near profitability and Defendants had created the illusion of financial stability by engaging in a host of illegal and improper activities each designed to inflate revenues and earnings-such as unilaterally breaking low-rate contracts and imposing significantly higher rates, and by refusing to pay drivers for mileage related expenses-both of which ultimately resulted in independent class action lawsuits; and (2) Waitr’s technology provided no real advantage and the Company could not obtain the developer, programming, or engineering resources necessary to enhance, maintain, and develop industry leading software from its headquarter location in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE WTRH CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/waitr-holdings-inc-loss-form?prid=3820&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Waitr Holdings you have until November 26, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Match Group Class Action Investigation; MTCH Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Match Group Class Action Investigation; MTCH Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a MTCH class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Match Group, Inc. (MTCH) securities between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019. For more on the Match Group Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Match Group lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company used fake love interest ads to convince customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions; (2) the Company made it difficult and confusing for consumers to cancel their subscriptions; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (4) the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MTCH CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/match-group-inc-loss-form?prid=3820&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Match Group you have until December 2, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Sundial Growers Class Action Investigation; SNDL Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Sundial Growers Class Action Investigation; SNDL Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

September 30, 2019

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a SNDL class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Sundial Growers Inc. (SNDL) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in August 1, 2019. For more on the Sundial Growers Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Sundial Growers lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations to Zenabis Global Inc.; (2) due to material quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of cannabis to Sundial, valued at approximately U.S. $1.9 million (C$2.5 million); and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about Sundial’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SNDL CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sundial-growers-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Sundial Growers you have until November 25, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Ollies Bargain Outlet Holdings Class Action Investigation; OLLI Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Ollies Bargain Outlet Holdings Class Action Investigation; OLLI Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a OLLI class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Ollies Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI) securities between June 6, 2019 and August 28, 2019. For more on the Ollies Bargain Outlet Holdings Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Ollies Bargain Outlet Holdings lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company suffered a supply chain issue that impacted the initial inventory available at new stores; (2) as a result, the Company lacked sufficient inventory to meet demand at certain store locations; (3) as a result, the Company’s comparable store sales were likely to decrease quarter-over-quarter; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE OLLI CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ollies-bargain-outlet-holdings-inc-loss-form?prid=3632&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Ollies Bargain Outlet Holdings you have until November 18, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Eagle Bancorp Class Action Investigation; EGBN Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Eagle Bancorp Class Action Investigation; EGBN Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a EGBN class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Eagle Bancorp, Inc. (EGBN) securities between March 2, 2015 and July 17, 2019. For more on the Eagle Bancorp Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Eagle Bancorp lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Eagle Bancorp’s internal controls and procedures and compliance policies were inadequate; (2) the foregoing shortcoming created a foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny and the need for the Company undertake its own internal investigations; and (3) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE EGBN CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eagle-bancorp-inc-loss-form?prid=3631&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Eagle Bancorp you have until September 23, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Carbonite Class Action Investigation; CARB Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Carbonite Class Action Investigation; CARB Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a CARB class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Carbonite, Inc. (CARB) securities between February 7, 2019 and July 25, 2019. For more on the Carbonite Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Carbonite lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Carbonite’s Server Backup VM Edition was of poor quality and technologically flawed; (2) Carbonite was receiving poor reviews and complaints from customers about the Server Backup VM Edition; (3) the poor quality and technological flaws of the Server Backup VM Edition was acting as a “disruptive” factor throughout the Carbonite salesforce and keeping that sales organization from closing opportunistically on several larger deals during fiscal 2019; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Carbonite lacked any reasonable basis for issuing its positive projections and financial forecasts.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CARB CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carbonite-inc-loss-form?prid=3659&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Carbonite you have until September 30, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Meredith Corporation Class Action Investigation; MDP Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Meredith Corporation Class Action Investigation; MDP Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a MDP class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Meredith Corporation, (MDP) securities between January 31, 2018 and September 5, 2019. For more on the Meredith Corporation Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Meredith Corporation lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Time, Inc. acquisition was not as profitable as the Company had claimed; (2) the Company would incur additional costs for strategic investments to improve the Time business; (3) as a result, the Company’s earnings would be materially and adversely impacted; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MDP CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/meredith-corporation-loss-form?prid=3642&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Meredith Corporation you have until November 5, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Pluralsight Class Action Investigation; PS Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Pluralsight Class Action Investigation; PS Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a PS class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Pluralsight, Inc. (PS) securities between August 2, 2018 and July 31, 2019. For more on the Pluralsight Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Pluralsight lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Pluralsight was experiencing substantial delays in hiring and properly training the salesforce necessary to meet its lofty billing projections. In addition, the Company knew at the time of the March 2019 secondary public offering (“SPO”) that it was behind schedule onboarding new sales representatives, which was hurting the Company’s sales execution and preventing Pluralsight from meeting its high growth projections. Instead of disclosing such facts at the time of the SPO, and to cash-out at inflated prices, Defendants intentionally obscured and omitted this pertinent information from investors.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PS CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pluralsight-inc-loss-form?prid=3642&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Pluralsight you have until October 15, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Just Energy Group Class Action Investigation; JE Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Just Energy Group Class Action Investigation; JE Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a JE class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Just Energy Group, Inc. (JE) securities between November 9, 2017 and August 19, 2019. For more on the Just Energy Group Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Just Energy Group lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company experienced customer enrollment and nonpayment issues; (2) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur an impairment charge to its accounts receivable; (3) as a result, the Company lacked adequate internal control over its financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE JE CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/just-energy-group-inc-loss-form?prid=3642&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Just Energy Group you have until September 30, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Farfetch Class Action Investigation; FTCH Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Farfetch Class Action Investigation; FTCH Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a FTCH class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Farfetch Limited, (FTCH) securities between September 21, 2018 and August 8, 2019. For more on the Farfetch Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Farfetch lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company would refuse to reduce merchandise prices to match the rest of the market; (2) this sub-optimal pricing strategy rendered the Company’s platform highly susceptible to underpricing by competitors, despite what Defendants touted as a “superior” platform; and (3) as a result, the Company’s past and projected Platform Gross Merchandise Value growth rates were foreseeably unsustainable. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about the Company’s business strategy and growth prospects lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE FTCH CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/farfetch-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Farfetch you have until November 18, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Evolent Health Class Action Investigation; EVH Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Evolent Health Class Action Investigation; EVH Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

September 24, 2019

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a EVH class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Evolent Health, Inc. (EVH) securities between March 3, 2017 and May 28, 2019. For more on the Evolent Health Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Evolent Health lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Evolent’s partnership model was not aligned with its partners, as it was designed to parasitically increase its own revenue by extracting  enormous administrative and management fees at the expense of its partners such as Passport Health Plan (“Passport”); (2) Passport was struggling financially, particularly after Kentucky cut its reimbursement rates, and the partnership between Evolent and Passport was becoming increasingly unsustainable; (3) Evolent was draining Passport of functions, employees, and money to such an extent that Passport was left on the verge of insolvency; (4) for several months, Passport was conducting a bidding process to sell itself to a financial buyer to prevent liquidation; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE EVH CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/evolent-health-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Evolent Health you have until October 7, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Karyopharm Therapeutics Class Action Investigation; KPTI Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Karyopharm Therapeutics Class Action Investigation; KPTI Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a KPTI class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. (KPTI) securities between March 2, 2017 and February 22, 2019. For more on the Karyopharm Therapeutics Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Karyopharm Therapeutics lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company continued to tout the commercial prospects for selinexor and consistently described selinexor as having a “predictable and manageable tolerability profile” and a “very nice safety profile,” and assured investors that it was “well tolerated” by patients. (2) Karyopharm also claimed that selinexor had the potential to be used as a new treatment for MM, with limited and manageable side effects. (3) As a result of these misrepresentations, Karyopharm shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE KPTI CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/karyopharm-therapeutics-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Karyopharm Therapeutics you have until September 23, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Sarepta Therapeutics Class Action Investigation; SRPT Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Sarepta Therapeutics Class Action Investigation; SRPT Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a SRPT class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (SRPT) securities between September 6, 2017 and August 19, 2019. For more on the Sarepta Therapeutics Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Sarepta Therapeutics lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) golodirsen, Sarepta’s drug for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, posed significant safety risks to patients; (2) consequently, the New Drug Application package for golodirsen’s accelerated approval was unlikely to receive Food and Drug Administration approval; and (3) as a result, Sarepta’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SRPT CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sarepta-therapeutics-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Sarepta Therapeutics you have until October 29, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Cardinal Health Class Action Investigation; CAH Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Cardinal Health Class Action Investigation; CAH Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a CAH class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH) securities between March 2, 2015 and May 2, 2018. For more on the Cardinal Health Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Cardinal Health lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) following Cardinal’s acquisition of Cordis, the RFID [radio-frequency identification] inventory tracking technology and advanced supply chain solutions that Defendants told investors the Company would to use to improve Cordis’s performance were never implemented across Cordis; (2) Cordis’s antiquated and ineffective global supply chain was causing operational and inventory problems at Cordis; (3) as a result, Cordis manufactured and accumulated excessive amounts of cardiovascular product inventories, which sat on the shelf and became unsellable and/or expired; (4) the Company materially overstated Cordis’s inventory balances; (5) Cordis was not “performing well” and its integration was not “on track,” “going incredibly well” or “largely on plan”; and (6) to correct Cordis’s deficiencies, the Company would have to make substantial investments in Cordis’s IT and supporting infrastructure, thereby incurring significant Selling, General and Administrative Expenses charges beyond the levels internally budgeted or projected by Cardinal and diminishing operating earnings.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CAH CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cardinal-health-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Cardinal Health you have until September 30, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces CVS Health Corporation Class Action Investigation; CVS Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces CVS Health Corporation Class Action Investigation; CVS Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a CVS class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of all former Aetna Inc. shareholders who acquired CVS Health Corporation (CVS) shares in exchange for their Aetna shares in connection with CVS’s acquisition of Aetna on November 28, 2018. For more on the CVS Health Corporation Class Action please contact us today.

According to the CVS Health Corporation lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) by the end of 2017, CVS’s financial condition and expected earnings had deteriorated as a result of rising costs and poor results being experienced in the long-term care (“LTC”) unit associated with the 2015 acquisition of Omnicare; (2) in 2017, deteriorating conditions and prospects in CVS ‘s LTC unit prompted CVS to undertake hasty acquisitions of LTC pharmacies to compensate for the declining LTC business and/or mask the expected LTC goodwill impairment ahead of the planned Acquisition; (3) although negative LTC performance factors prompted CVS and the CVS Individual Defendants to make hasty LTC pharmacy acquisitions in 2017, those same negative factors were being overlooked and ignored for purposes of undertaking, disclosing, and reporting the results of LTC goodwill impairment tests throughout 2017, in violation of GAAP; (4) the LTC goodwill being carried on CVS’s books as a result of the Omnicare acquisition was being carried at inflated values that would require billions of dollars in impairment charges that would be charged against earnings; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, CVS’s true business metrics and financial prospects were not as the Offering Documents represented.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CVS CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cvs-health-corporation-loss-form-2?prid=3546&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in CVS Health Corporation you have until October 15, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Curaleaf Holdings Class Action Investigation; CURLF Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Curaleaf Holdings Class Action Investigation; CURLF Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a CURLF class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (CURLF) securities between November 21, 2018 and July 22, 2019. For more on the Curaleaf Holdings Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Curaleaf Holdings lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Curaleaf, on its website and social media pages, marketed its CBD products to be used as drugs and dietary supplements, contrary to law; (2) Curaleaf also sold unapproved animal drugs on its website; (3) such conduct would result in a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 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.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CURLF CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/curaleaf-holdings-inc-loss-form?prid=3546&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Curaleaf Holdings you have until October 4, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Viewray Class Action Investigation; VRAY Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Viewray Class Action Investigation; VRAY Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a VRAY class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Viewray, Inc. (VRAY) securities between March 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019. For more on the Viewray Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Viewray lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches first announced in November 2019 that could make purchases of new ViewRay systems less profitable for customers; (2) the Company’s reported backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported backlog; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about ViewRay’s business metrics and financial prospects during the Class Period were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE VRAY CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/viewray-inc-loss-form?prid=3551&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Viewray you have until November 12, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Textron Class Action Investigation; TXT Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Textron Class Action Investigation; TXT Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a TXT class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Textron Inc. (TXT) securities between January 31, 2018 and October 17, 2018. For more on the Textron Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Textron lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) end market sales of Arctic Cat products were slowing, resulting in a massive glut of old Arctic Cat inventory on dealers’ floors; (2) in order to clear out this old inventory, the Company provided significant price discounts, which negatively impacted Textron’s earnings; and (3) as a result, Textron’s positive statements about Arctic Cat’s business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TXT CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/textron-inc-loss-form?prid=3551&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Textron you have until October 21, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces 2U Class Action Investigation; TWOU Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces 2U Class Action Investigation; TWOU Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a TWOU class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased 2U, Inc. (TWOU) securities between February 26, 2018 and July 30, 2019. For more on the 2U Class Action please contact us today.

According to the 2U lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 2U’s business model was fundamentally flawed because the Company’s costs were growing disproportionately as it grew in size and complexity; (2) 2U could not take advantage of the promised economies of scale because its costs to attract each marginal student were actually increasing, not decreasing, as represented; (3) 2U was facing heightened competitive headwinds as alternative offerings flooded the marketplace and universities developed online courses in-house; (4) 2U’s growth rate in student enrollment was decelerating and was poised to decline as the Company reached market saturation; (5) 2U’s growth strategy was unsustainable, as the Company faced accelerating costs and had insufficient capital to achieve positive cash flows, improve margins or continue its revenue growth; and (6) as a result of (1)-(5), above, Defendants lacked any reasonable basis to issue 2U’s projections and financial forecasts.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TWOU CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/2u-inc-loss-form?prid=3553&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in 2U you have until October 7, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Valaris Class Action Investigation; VAL Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Valaris Class Action Investigation; VAL Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a VAL class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Valaris plc, (VAL) securities between April 11, 2019 and July 31, 2019. For more on the Valaris Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Valaris lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater segment, massive cash usage, and significant negative cash flow; (2) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company’s second quarter 2019 results; (3) the merger leading to Valaris’s establishment could not deliver on its touted benefits; and (4) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE VAL CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/valaris-plc-loss-form?prid=3556&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Valaris you have until October 21, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Granite Construction Class Action Investigation; GVA Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Granite Construction Class Action Investigation; GVA Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a GVA class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Granite Construction Incorporated, (GVA) securities between October 26, 2018 and August 1, 2019. For more on the Granite Construction Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Granite Construction lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had assumed certain risks in connection with its heavy civil joint venture projects bid between 2012 and 2014; (2) there was an “untenable” imbalance of risk sharing between the Company and the joint venture project owners; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur additional project costs for its joint venture projects; (4) the Company was reasonably likely to incur additional costs in connection with certain project disputes; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE GVA CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/granite-construction-incorporated-loss-form?prid=3557&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Granite Construction you have until October 15, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces GTT Communications Class Action Investigation; GTT Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces GTT Communications Class Action Investigation; GTT Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a GTT class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased GTT Communications, Inc. (GTT) securities between February 26, 2018 and July 1, 2019. For more on the GTT Communications Class Action please contact us today.

According to the GTT Communications lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) following GTT’s acquisition of Interoute Communications Holdings S.A., there were delays in migrating Interoute’s legacy systems and processes into GTT’s client management database system; (2) Interoute had made a strategic priority shift to sell cloud services that was a higher percentage of Interoute’s sales in the two years leading up to the acquisition; (3) a material percentage of the Interoute sales representatives were not productive at selling GTT’s core cloud networking services; (4) GTT was unable to yield as many Interoute salespeople because Interoute had hired many sales people focused on cloud services and allowed underperforming sales representatives to remain at Interoute; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE GTT CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/gtt-communications-inc-loss-form?prid=3557&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in GTT Communications you have until September 30, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces L Brands Class Action Investigation; LB Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces L Brands Class Action Investigation; LB Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a LB class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased L Brands, Inc. (LB) securities between May 31, 2018 and November 19, 2018. For more on the L Brands Class Action please contact us today.

According to the L Brands lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Victoria’s Secret and PINK businesses were having a material adverse effect on the Company’s cash flow, liquidity and debt levels; (2) Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the ability of the Company to sustain its dividend; (3) the MD&A disclosures in filings L Brands made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (4) the risk factor disclosures in filings L Brands made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (5) the representations about L Brands’ disclosure controls in filings the Company made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (6) the certifications issued by Defendants Wexner and Burgdoerfer on L Brands disclosure controls were materially false and misleading; and (7) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about L Brands’ then-current business operations and future financial prospects.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE LB CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/l-brands-inc-loss-form?prid=3557&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in L Brands you have until September 23, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces NetApp Class Action Investigation; NTAP Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces NetApp Class Action Investigation; NTAP Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a NTAP class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased NetApp, Inc. (NTAP) securities between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019. For more on the NetApp Class Action please contact us today.

According to the NetApp lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter and that the deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) as a result, the Company’s revenue would be materially impacted; (3) as a result, the Company would lower its fiscal 2020 guidance; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE NTAP CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/netapp-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in NetApp you have until October 15, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces International Flavors & Fragrances Class Action Investigation; IFF Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces International Flavors & Fragrances Class Action Investigation; IFF Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a IFF class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF) securities between May 7, 2018 and August 5, 2019. For more on the International Flavors & Fragrances Class Action please contact us today.

According to the International Flavors & Fragrances lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that Frutarom Industries Ltd. (“Frutarom”), which the Company acquired in 2018, had bribed customers in Russia and Ukraine; (2) that senior management at Frutarom were aware of such improper payments; (3) that, as a result, Frutarom’s financial results were materially overstated; (4) that, as a result of the improper payments, the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny; (5) that the Company had not completed adequate due diligence before acquiring Frutarom; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was unlikely to achieve purported synergies from the acquisition; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE IFF CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/international-flavors-fragrances-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in International Flavors & Fragrances you have until October 11, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Abiomed Class Action Investigation; ABMD Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Abiomed Class Action Investigation; ABMD Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a ABMD class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Abiomed, Inc. (ABMD) securities between January 31, 2019 and July 31, 2019. For more on the Abiomed Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Abiomed lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Abiomed’s revenue growth was in decline; (2) the Company did not have a sufficient plan in place to stem its declining revenue growth; (3) the Company was unlikely to restore its revenue growth over the next several fiscal quarters; (4) consequently, Abiomed was reasonably likely to revise its full-year 2020 guidance in a way that would fall short of the Company’s prior projections and market expectations; and (5) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE ABMD CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/abiomed-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Abiomed you have until October 7, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Greenlane Holdings Class Action Investigation; GNLN Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Greenlane Holdings Class Action Investigation; GNLN Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a GNLN class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (GNLN) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in April 2019. For more on the Greenlane Holdings Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Greenlane Holdings lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the City of San Francisco had introduced a major initiative to ban the sale of e-cigarette products across three major cities and prohibit the manufacture of products at the headquarters of Greenlane’s key partner, JUUL Labs; (2)  if approved, the initiative would materially and adversely impact the Company’s financial results and prospects; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE GNLN CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/greenlane-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Greenlane Holdings you have until November 12, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces DXC Technology Company Class Action Investigation; DXC Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces DXC Technology Company Class Action Investigation; DXC Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a DXC class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased DXC Technology Company, (DXC) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in April 2017. For more on the DXC Technology Company Class Action please contact us today.

According to the DXC Technology Company lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the planned “workforce optimization” plan involved implementing arbitrary quotas; (2) the plan would cut thousands of jobs at the Company; (3) jobs that were particularly at risk of being cut were held by longer-tenured, knowledgeable, and highly compensated senior personnel; (4) these job terminations were selectively timed to artificially inflate reported earnings and other financial metrics; (5) at the time of the formation of DXC Technology Company, J. Michael Lawrie (the incoming President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board at DXC) had forecasted plans for a $2.7 billion workforce reduction in the first year; (6) as a result of these workforce terminations, the Company was unlikely to deliver on client contracts; (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s clients would be dissatisfied and the relationships would be impaired; and (8) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE DXC CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/dxc-technology-company-loss-form-2?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in DXC Technology Company you have until November 15, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Cadence Bancorporation Class Action Investigation; CADE Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Cadence Bancorporation Class Action Investigation; CADE Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a CADE class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Cadence Bancorporation, (CADE) securities between July 23, 2018 and July 22, 2019. For more on the Cadence Bancorporation Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Cadence Bancorporation lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk; (2) as a result, certain of the Company’s loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain loans; (4) the Company’s financial results would suffer a material adverse impact; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CADE CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cadence-bankcorporation-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in Cadence Bancorporation you have until November 15, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces MacroGenics Class Action Investigation; MGNX Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces MacroGenics Class Action Investigation; MGNX Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a MGNX class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) securities between February 6, 2019 and June 3, 2019. For more on the MacroGenics Class Action please contact us today.

According to the MacroGenics lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had conducted the progression-free survival (“PFS”) and first interim overall survival (“OS”) analyses for the SOPHIA trial by no later than October 10, 2018; (2) the October 2018 PFS analysis showed a 0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (3) the October 2018 OS interim analysis did not produce a statistically significant result and the interim OS Kaplan-Meier curves crossed in several spots (thereby violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MGNX CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/macrogenics-inc-loss-form?wire=3

If you suffered a loss in MacroGenics you have until November 12, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Mallinckrodt Class Action Investigation; MNK Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Mallinckrodt Class Action Investigation; MNK Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a MNK class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Mallinckrodt Public Limited Company, (MNK) securities between February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019. For more on the Mallinckrodt Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Mallinckrodt lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Acthar posed significant safety concerns that rendered it a non-viable treatment for ALS; (2) accordingly, Mallinckrodt overstated the viability of Acthar as an ALS treatment; and (3) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MNK CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mallinckrodt-public-limited-company-loss-form?prid=3569&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Mallinckrodt you have until September 24, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces National General Holdings Class Action Investigation; NGHC Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a NGHC class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased National General Holdings Corp., (NGHC) securities between August 6, 2015 and August 9, 2017. For more on the National General Holdings Class Action please contact us today.

According to the National General Holdings lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) National General was perpetrating a massive forced-placed CPI scheme to fraudulently saddle its own customers with unwanted and unneeded automobile insurance policies that it had underwritten; (2) National General’s illicit conduct in foisting unwanted and unneeded automobile insurance on its customers had resulted in some of the victims being declared delinquent, suffering adverse impacts to their creditworthiness, and/or having their cars improperly repossessed; (3) National General was exposed to an extreme risk of regulatory scrutiny, legal risks, and reputational harm as a result of its participation in the forced placed CPI scheme; (4) the Company had failed to maintain effective internal controls over its financial reporting, including by failing to maintain formal documentation sufficient to reasonably ensure the accuracy of internal reporting and accounting procedures across much of its business, including with respect to insurance policy premiums; (5) the Company’s reported quarterly revenues and policy premiums were in part the product of a fraudulent forced-placed insurance scheme and were therefore artificially inflated and unsustainable; and (6) National General had in fact lost substantial business with Wells Fargo because Wells Fargo had terminated the forced-placed CPI scheme after concluding that it posed excessive reputational risk and legal exposure.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE KPTI CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/national-general-holdings-corp-loss-form?prid=3569&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in National General Holdings you have until September 23, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces 3M Company Class Action Investigation; MMM Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces 3M Company Class Action Investigation; MMM Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a MMM class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased 3M Company (MMM) securities between February 9, 2017 and May 28, 2019. For more on the 3M Company Class Action please contact us today.

According to the 3M Company lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 3M had vast internal evidence dating back decades confirming that polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) are toxic (which was first publicly revealed in February 2018 by Minnesota’s Attorney General); (2) 3M had a decades-long history of suppressing negative information and/or damaging data about PFAS; and (3) 3M has legal exposure to state, county, and local governments and individuals around the country as a result of its knowledge and intentional concealment of the toxic harm caused by the use of PFAS.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MMM CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/3m-company-loss-form?prid=3569&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in 3M Company you have until September 27, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Granite Construction Class Action Investigation; GVA Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Granite Construction Class Action Investigation; GVA Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

September 19, 2019

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a GVA class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Granite Construction Incorporated, (GVA) securities between October 26, 2018 and August 1, 2019. For more on the Granite Construction Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Granite Construction lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had assumed certain risks in connection with its heavy civil joint venture projects bid between 2012 and 2014; (2) there was an “untenable” imbalance of risk sharing between the Company and the joint venture project owners; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur additional project costs for its joint venture projects; (4) the Company was reasonably likely to incur additional costs in connection with certain project disputes; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE GVA CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/granite-construction-incorporated-loss-form?prid=3451&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Granite Construction you have until October 15, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Levi & Korsinsky Announces Karyopharm Therapeutics Class Action Investigation; KPTI Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Karyopharm Therapeutics Class Action Investigation; KPTI Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a KPTI class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. (KPTI) securities between March 2, 2017 and February 22, 2019. For more on the Karyopharm Therapeutics Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Karyopharm Therapeutics lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company continued to tout the commercial prospects for selinexor and consistently described selinexor as having a “predictable and manageable tolerability profile” and a “very nice safety profile,” and assured investors that it was “well tolerated” by patients; (2) Karyopharm also claimed that selinexor had the potential to be used as a new treatment for MM, with limited and manageable side effects; and (3) As a result of these misrepresentations, Karyopharm shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE KPTI CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/karyopharm-therapeutics-inc-loss-form?prid=3451&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Karyopharm Therapeutics you have until September 23, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Netflix Class Action Investigation; NFLX Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a NFLX class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Netflix, Inc. (NFLX) securities between April 17, 2019 and July 17, 2019. For more on the Netflix Class Action please contact us today.

According to the Netflix lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Netflix would not be able to gain its expected target number of new subscribers in the second quarter of 2019; (2) Netflix would also lose subscribers from the United States in the second quarter of 2019; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE NFLX CLASS ACTION, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/netflix-inc-loss-form?prid=3451&wire=1

If you suffered a loss in Netflix you have until September 20, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

55 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10006

jlevi@levikorsinsky.com

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 9, 2019

Mo-Kan Iron Workers Pension Fund v. Teligent, Inc. et al 1:19-cv-03354-VM — On April 15, 2019, investors sued Teligent, Inc. (“Teligent” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The TLGT class action alleges that the plaintiffs acquired Teligent stock at artificially inflated prices between May 2, 2017 and November 7, 2017 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the TLGT Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Teligent (NASDAQ: TLGT) is a self-described specialty generic pharmaceutical company.

As such, its mission is to “be a leading player in the specialty generic prescription drug market.” To accomplish this, Teligent researches and engages in the development, production, distribution and sales of generic drugs.

According to the investor portion of its website, the Company had 22 Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) on file at the FDA, representing a total addressable market of approximately $1.6 billion as of last June.

Teligent is incorporated in Delaware and its headquarters are located in Buena, New Jersey.

Summary of Facts

Teligent and its President/CEO (collectively the “Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, and operational and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain product “non-conformities” and compliance (or lack thereof) with applicable regulations from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Teligent stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The initially surfaced after the market closed on November 6, 2017. That’s when the Company issued a press release announcing its results for the third quarter of 2017. According to the April 15 complaint, the press release “exposed the depths of Teligent’s R&D, production and legal issues.”

A closer look…

As also alleged in the April 15 complaint, the Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

First, the Company “highlighted its revenue growth in the first quarter of 2017” on a form filed with the SEC on May 2, 2017.

Then in an ensuing earnings call, Teligent’s President/CEO stated in relevant part: “This growth has been driven by a combination of new product launches and competitive supply chain dynamics to which Teligent has been able to respond effectively.”

On the same conference call, Teligent’s President and CEO also stated in relevant part: “To the extent that we can replicate these timely approvals with our current investments in R&D, we will continue to deliver value in the form of the return on these investments as we launch products to the market.”

What the Company and its President/CEO allegedly failed to disclose, however, was that Teligent was experiencing “product non-conformities in R&D, and non-compliance with applicable regulations.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Teligent’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 TLGT Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is June 14, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Teligent common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

TLGT Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 8, 2019

Heck v. Orion Group Holdings, Inc. et al 4:19-cv-01337 — On April 11, 2019, investors sued Orion Group Holdings, Inc. (“Orion” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Plaintiffs in the ORN class action allege that they acquired Orion Stock at artificially inflated prices between March 13, 2018 and March 26, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the ORN Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Orion (NYSE: ORN) is a self-described “leading specialty construction company.”

As such, the Company says it provides comprehensive land- and water-based construction services in the continental United States, Alaska, Canada and the Caribbean Basin.

Orion has two business divisions or “segments.” These are its heavy civil marine construction (HCMC) segment and its commercial concrete construction (CCC) segment.  The former is engaged in the construction of marine transportation facilities and marine pipelines. It also dredges waterways, channels and ports. The latter is engaged in the provision of “turnkey concrete construction services across the light commercial, structural, and other associated business areas.”

Orion is incorporated in Delaware and its executive offices are located in Houston, Texas.

Summary of Facts

Orion and three of its current and/or former senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operations and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain accounting practices and the efficacy of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Orion stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that transpired between October 18, 2018 and March 26, 2019. First, the Company announced that it “expected a significant revenue shortfall for the third quarter 2018 due to production delays, and that its Chief Financial Officer had resigned.”

Then, on March 28, 2019, the Company disclosed that it would miss the deadline for filing its annual report with the SEC because of “extended evaluations of goodwill impairment testing and income tax adjustments, among other things.” On that same day, the Company also revealed that it “expects that a significant change in results of operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected in its financial statements.”

Finally, on March 26, 2019, Orion reported a net loss exceeding $94 million for the fourth quarter of 2018 “due to certain non-cash charges, including a $69.5 million goodwill impairment charge.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the April 11 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in an annual report filed with the SEC on March 13, 2018, the Company stated in relevant part: “We could suffer contract losses if we fail to accurately estimate our costs or fail to execute within our cost estimates on fixed-price, lump sum contracts.”

Then, in a quarterly report filed with the SEC on May 4, 2018, Orion stated in relevant part: “[n]o indicators of goodwill impairment were identified during the three months ended March 31, 2018.”

Finally, in a quarterly report filed with the SEC on November 2, 2018, Orion also stated in pertinent part: “During the three months ended September 30, 2018, the Company identified potential indicators of impairment to goodwill for both its marine and concrete reporting units… After evaluating all events, circumstances and factors which could affect the significant inputs used to determine fair value, the Company determined it was not more likely than not that an impairment existed at either reporting unit.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Orion’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$3.19
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$2.97
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6.90%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 ORN Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is June 10, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Orion common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

ORN Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce AAPL Lawsuit; AAPL Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 7, 2019

City of Roseville Employees’ Retirement System v. Apple Inc. et al 4:19-cv-02033-YGR — On April 16, 2019, investors sued Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the AAPL class action allege that they acquired Apple stock at artificially inflated prices between November 2, 2018 and January 2, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the AAPL lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: AAPL)  engages in the design, manufacturing, marketing and sales of “mobile communication and media devices, and personal computers.”

Bolstered by global marketing and sales, Apple’s smartphones are among its best-known products. However, the Company also designs makes and sells tablets, laptops and desktop computers. In addition to these devices, it sells ancillary products and services to customers in the United States and abroad.

According to the April 16 complaint, Apple had 4.75 billion shares issued and outstanding as of October 26,2018.

Summary of Facts

Apple, and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the demand for some of its products and related issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Apple stock prices to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out after trading ended on January 2, 2019. At that time, Apple released a letter from its CEO, Tim Cook to investors. In it, Apple revealed that its first quarter revenues for 2019 fell well short of predictions made just a few weeks before. The Company acknowledged that it had experienced “fewer iPhone upgrades than [it] had anticipated,” and blamed the poor performance on the Chinese economy.

It said in pertinent part: “While we anticipated some challenges in key emerging markets, we did not foresee the magnitude of the economic deceleration, particularly in Greater China. In fact, most of our revenue shortfall to our guidance, and over 100 percent of our year-over-year worldwide revenue decline, occurred in Greater China across iPhone, Mac and iPad.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the April 16 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “[o]ver the past two months, [Apple had] delivered huge advancements for [its] customers through new versions of iPhone, Apple Watch, iPad and Mac and well as [its] four operating systems and [that it was] enter[ing] the holiday season with [its] strongest lineup of products and services ever.”

In an ensuing conference call with investors and securities analysts, one of the Individual Defendants reiterated the claim, and added that it justified “a new all-time record” of “expected revenue [of] between $89 billion and $93 billion.”

In response to questions about “macroeconomic uncertainty” in “emerging markets” during the same conference call, the other Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “And so I think – or at least the way I see these is each one of the emerging markets has a bit of a different story. In relation to China specifically, I would not put China in that category. Our business was very strong last quarter.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Apple’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$157.92
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$142.19
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

9.96%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 AAPL Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is June 17, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Apple common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

AAPL Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce EB Lawsuit; EB Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 3, 2019

Gomes v. Eventbrite, Inc. et al 5:19-cv-02019-EJD — On April 15, 2019, investors sued Eventbrite, Inc. (“Eventbrite” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. The EB class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Eventbrite stock based on a Registration Statement wrongfully issued in connection with the Company’s September 2018 IPO; and/or acquired Eventbrite stock at artificially inflated prices between September 20, 2018 and March 7, 2019 (the “Class Period”). Plaintiffs are now seeking compensation for financial losses sustained upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the EB lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Eventbrite (NYSE: EB) says it facilitates live events by providing a “powerful, broad technology platform” that allows organizers to “plan, promote and produce live events.” Specifically, the Company claims that its platform allows event organizers to do so in a manner that minimizes complication and maximizes profit.

In all, Eventbrite claims, its platform powered nearly 4 million events – including “live experiences” in more than 170 countries – in 2018. The Company also says that more than 795,000 event creators used its platform last year.

Summary of Facts

The Company and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical  information about Eventbrite’s business practices, operations and prospects, during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about complications stemming from Eventbrite’s September 2017 acquisition of Ticketfly from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Eventbrite stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

Along with the Individual Defendants, eight Eventbrite directors who either signed or authorized the signing of the Registration Statement in question; and six companies that served as underwriters for the IPO in question, are also named as defendants in the complaint.

The truth emerged after the market closed on March 7, 2019. At that time, the Company issued a letter to shareholders indicating that Eventbrite’s “growth rate would be negatively impacted while it integrated Ticketfly.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the April 15 complaint, the Registration Statement was “negligently prepared.” Consequently, it was “materially false and misleading.”

As also alleged in the April 15 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a letter to shareholders issued on November 12, 2018, the Company stated in pertinent part: “Revenues grew by 45.1% to $73.6 million in the third quarter, with both Eventbrite platform growth and acquired businesses contributing to the increase in total sales.”

In the same letter, the Company also stated: “Gross profit increased by 41.7 % to $42.2 million. Gross margin was 57.2 %, down 140 basis points year-over-year due to amortization related to the Ticketfly platform.”

Finally, in the same letter, Eventbrite told its shareholders: “Our strategy is to operate a single technical platform globally, which means that we work to migrate customers from acquired platforms to the Eventbrite platform. This migration process has historically taken 12 to 24 months, over which the Eventbrite team engages with customers to support this process.”

Two days later, the Company filed a form with the SEC in which it “reaffirmed the previously reported third quarter 2018 financial results.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on GM’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$32.42
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$24.46
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

24.55%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 EB Class Action EB Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is June 17, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Eventbrite common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

EB Class Action EB Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces NOK Lawsuit; NOK Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 2, 2019

Tom v. Nokia Corporation et al 1:19-cv-03509-ALC — On April 19, 2019, investors sued Nokia Corporation (“Nokia” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the NOK class action allege that they acquired the Company’s American Depository Shares (ADS) at artificially inflated prices between October 25, 2018 and March 21, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the NOK lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Nokia (NYSE:NOK) is a “network and technology company” engaged in the provision of hardware, software and related services for “telecommunications operators” and businesses. It is also engaged in the provision of “fixed networking solutions.”

The Company’s history dates to 1865, when it was founded as a single paper mill operation. Throughout its existence, the Company has adapted and provided products and services ranging from cable, paper products, rubber boots, tires, to televisions and mobile phones.

According to the Company’s website, Nokia didn’t devote its efforts to telecommunications until the 1990s. The benchmark of its success in the mobile phone sector occurred by 1998, when Nokia became “the best-selling mobile phone brand in the world.” Five years later, Nokia brought the first camera phone to the market. However, increased competition from other tech giants soon forced Nokia to team up with Microsoft. In 2014 Nokia sold its mobile and devices division to Microsoft.

Prior to that, in 2013, he Company adapted once again, laying the groundwork for its reemergence as a provider of network hardware and software by creating Nokia Networks. The Company also claims that its “2015 acquisition of Franco-American telecommunications equipment provider Alcatel-Lucent greatly broadened the scope” of its “portfolio and customer base.”

Nokia’s claims and/or lack of disclosures about that acquisition are at the crux of the April 19 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Nokia and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about its acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Nokia ADS to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in an Annual Report that the Company filed with the SEC on March 21, 2019. In it, Nokia said in pertinent part: “During the course of the ongoing integration process, we have been made aware of certain practices relating to compliance issues at the former Alcatel-Lucent business that have raised concerns. We have initiated an internal investigation and voluntarily reported the matter to the relevant regulatory authorities, with whom we are cooperating with a view to resolving the matter.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the April 19 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company said in pertinent part: “We expect to end 2018 with a strong financial position, based on strong seasonality in Q4.”

Then, in another press release issued on January 31, 2019, Nokia stated in relevant part: “”Our robust topline performance reflects strong competitiveness across our portfolio and that our strategy execution is tracking well.”

What the Company allegedly failed to disclose, however, was that Alcatel-Lucent had certain compliance issues that were potentially detrimental for various reasons.

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Nokia’s ADS Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$6.26
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$5.88
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6.07%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 NOK Class Action, NOK Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is June 18, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Nokia ADS using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

NOK Class Action, NOK Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce FCHS Lawsuit; FCHS Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 29, 2019

Mas Partners LP v. First Choice Healthcare Solutions Inc., et al 6:19-cv-00619 — On March 29, 2019, investors sued First Choice Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (“First Choice,” “FCHS,” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida. Plaintiffs in the FCHS class action allege that they acquired First Choice stock at artificially inflated prices between April 1, 2014 and November 14, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the FCHS Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (OTC: FCHS) engages in the development of a “network of localized, integrated care platforms comprised of non-physician-owned medical centers.”

The Company says these “medical centers of excellence” are specifically designed to meet the needs of patients requiring specialized treatment and care including that related to: orthopedics, spine surgery, neurology, interventional pain management and “related diagnostic and ancillary services.” The Company also notes that it targets important markets in the southeastern region of the United States for the development of such centers.

Finally, the Company says its “flagship integrated platform,” including First Choice Medical Group, The B.A.C.K. Center and Crane Creek Surgery Center, now facilitates more than 100,000 patient visits annually,

Summary of Facts

First Choice and its former CEO/president/chairman (collectively, the “Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain conduct and lack of compliance with internal policies from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused First Choice stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that transpired on November 14, 2018 and November 15, 2018. First, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed an indictment against then-First Choice CEO Christian Romandetti, Sr., and several other participants in an alleged “pump and dump scheme.”

In a press release issued the next day (November 15), the DOJ announced the indictment and its charges against Romandetti “and his associates… with conducting a pump and dump scheme in coordination with Elite Stock Research (ESR), a boiler room, to defraud investors in FCHS… The charges include conspiracies to commit securities fraud, wire fraud and money laundering and substantive securities fraud.”

Also on November 15, the SEC filed a complaint and issued a press release announcing its charges “for defrauding elderly and unsophisticated investors.”

A closer look

As alleged in the March 29 complaint, the Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

For example, signed certifications accompanying an Annual Report filed by the Company at the beginning of the Class Period stated that the Report: “did not contain any untrue statement of a material fact; or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.”

Then, on another Annual Report filed with the SEC on April 15, 2015, the Company stated in pertinent part: “[the] market price of our common stock is likely to be similarly volatile, and investors in our common stock may experience a decrease, which could be substantial, in the value of their stock.”

Finally, on the same form, the Company stated in pertinent part: “On September 18, 2014, the Company entered into a cancelable 4-month agreement (the “Agreement”) to engage the services of Elite Stock Research, Inc.” However,  as the March 29 complaint alleges, the Company did not reveal at the time that it had enlisted the “boiler room operation” to “engage in a pump and dump scheme.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on First Choice’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$1.01
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.35
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

65.35%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 FCHS Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in First Choice common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

FCHS Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce CRCM Lawsuit; CRCM Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 26, 2019

Toussaint v. Care.com, Inc. et al 1:19-cv-10628-MLW — On April 3, 2019, investors sued Care.com, Inc. (“Care.com” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs in the CRCM class action allege that they acquired Care.com stock at artificially inflated prices between March 27, 2015 and April 1, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the CRCM lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE:CRCM) bills itself as “the world’s largest online family care platform.” As such, it says it provides a forum that allows families to “find, manage and pay for care and provide employment opportunities for caregivers.”

Founded in 2006, Care.com is now available in more than 20 countries globally. Since its inception, the Company claims, more than 13.4 million caregivers have joined its platform to seek employment, and more than 18.3 million families have joined to seek their services. The Company also claims that more than 1.6 million employees of its corporate clients have access to its services.

On its website, the Company maintains that it offers “a robust suite of safety tools and resources” to its users. The Company’s claims about its safety measures are at the crux of the April 3 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Care.com and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the efficacy of Care.com’s screening measures from SEC filings. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Care.com stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired on March 8 and March 31, 2019. First, the Wall Street Journal published an article revealing that caregivers in the United States “who had police records were listed on Care.com and later were accused of committing crimes while caring for customers’ children or elderly relatives…”

Then, in an ensuing article, the Wall Street Journal reported that “hundreds of daycare centers listed as ‘state licensed’ on the Care.com website did not appear to be, and that tens of thousands of unverified daycare listings were scrubbed from the March 8, 2019 Wall Street Journal article was published.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the April 3 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in an annual report filed with the SEC at the beginning of Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “We have invested in building a differentiated member experience for finding and managing care. Examples of these investments include… the proactive screening of certain member information against various databases and other sources for criminal or other inappropriate activity, and the use of technology to help identify and prevent inappropriate activity through our platform.”

As the complaint alleges, the Company reiterated the statement on forms filed with the SEC on four additional occasions. Furthermore, in each case, the Individual Defendants signed certifications in accordance with federal law. By doing so they attested that they had reviewed the material on the form, that it did not contain any “untrue statements,” and that the Company’s internal controls “are effective.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Care.com’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$19.76
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$18.45
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6.62%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 CRCM Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is June 3, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Care.com common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

CRCM Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce AT&T Lawsuit; AT&T Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 25, 2019

Gross v. AT&T, Inc. et al 1:19-cv-02892-VEC — On April 1, 2019, investors sued AT&T, Inc. (“AT&T” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The AT&T class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired AT&T stock at artificially inflated prices between October 22, 2016 and October 24, 2018 (the “Class Period”); and/or or in connection with a Registration Statement associated with the Company’s June 2018 acquisition of and merger with Time Warner. Plaintiffs are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during those times. For more information on the AT&T Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: T) is a self-described “global leader in telecommunications, media, entertainment and technology.”

As such, the Company has four business units or segments. These are: AT&T Communications, WarnerMedia, AT&T Latin America, and Xandr. Collectively, the Company says, these divisions represent “the four key elements that define a modern media company,” allowing it to create and provide premium content, high-speed networks, and more.

AT&T is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its headquarters in Dallas, Texas.

Summary of Facts

AT&T, and two of its senior officers and 12 of its directors (collectively the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of doing so by: making false and misleading statements in and/or approving of the statements made in the Registration Statement; or by making false and misleading public statements following the merger and acquisition of Time Warner.

The truth came out on October 24, 2018, when AT&T announced its results for the third quarter of 2018. These results were significant because they were the first following the acquisition of and merger with Time Warner. Alarmingly, the results reflected dramatic losses in the number of “Traditional DirecTV” satellite subscriber losses and “DirecTV Now” subscribers.

In all, the results for the quarter reflected a net loss of more than 290,000 total video subscribers. This prompted one analyst to lambast the Company, saying: “AT&T hit a brick wall when it raised TV prices.” Based on the results another analyst concluded that, “…the stock is likely dead money now.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the April 1 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in an announcement about the acquisition made at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company said the transaction would: “[combine] Time Warner’s vast library content and the ability to create new premium content that connects audiences around the world, with AT&T’s extensive customer relationships, world’s largest pay TV subscriber base and leading scale in TV, mobile and broadband distribution.”

Then, in the Registration Statement approved by the SEC on January 5, 2017 and declared effective as of the next day, the Company touted: “yearly and quarterly growth trends in AT&T’s Entertainment Group segment, particularly Video Entertainment, including quarterly subscriber gains in its DirecTV Now services sufficient to offset any decrease in traditional satellite DirecTV subscribers…”

Finally, in a June 21, 2018 press release following the acquisition, the Company stated that it, “expects total video and broadband subscribers to increase, with DirecTV Now subscribers more than offsetting continued declines in traditional TV subscribers.”

What the Company never disclosed, however, was that it had “substantially increased prices while at the same time discontinuing promotional discounts for its DirecTV Now service.” The Company also failed to disclose that this resulted in a lack of renewals and new subscribers.

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on AT&T’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$33.02
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$29.09
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

11.90%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 T Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is May 31, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in AT&T common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

T Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce AMRS Lawsuit; AMRS Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 24, 2019

Mulderrig v. Amyris, Inc., et al 4:19-cv-01765-YGR — On April 3, 2019, investors sued Amyris, Inc. (“Amyris” or the “Company” in United States District Court, Northern District of California. The AMRS class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Amyris stock at artificially inflated prices between March 15, 2018 and March 19, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the AMRS Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: AMRS) is an “integrated renewable products company “that engages in the creation and provision of” sustainably sourced product.

As such, Amyris claims that it uses “innovative ​bioscience solutions” to ​turn plant sugars into ​hydrocarbon molecules, ​specialty ingredients and ​consumer products.” These products are then used in select markets including  ​“specialty and performance ​chemicals, fragrance ​ingredients, and cosmetic ​emollients.”

Amyris is incorporated in Delaware and its headquarters are located in Emeryville, California.

Summary of Facts

The Company and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the efficacy of its accounting practices and internal controls over financial reporting from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Amyris stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out after the market closed on March 19, 2019, when the Company filed a form with the SEC. In it, Amyris announced that it was “in the process of completing its evaluation internal control over financial reporting and may have further deficiencies to report.” The Company also stated that it expected to “continue to report that there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the April 3 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC on April 2, 2018, the Company stated in pertinent part: “Amyris, Inc. (the “Company”) was unable to file its Annual Report… within the prescribed time period without unreasonable effort and expense because of the significant time and resources the were devoted to the accounting for and disclosure of the significant transaction with Koninkliijke DSM N.V. that closed on December 28, 2017.”

Then, on another form filed with the SEC on April 17, 2018, Amyris disclosed “certain material weaknesses identified by management.”

On yet another form filed with the SEC on May 18, 2018, the Company also stated that, “the previously-identified material weakness in internal control over financial reporting had not yet been remediated.”

Finally, in a press release issued on November 13, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants stated in pertinent part: “… we are very disappointed with the volatility of the Vitamin E market and its direct impact on our third quarter revenue. Some of this shortfall is expected be [sic] made up with our core market revenue performance through year end.”

What the Company never disclosed, however, was that the actual cause of its material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting was a lack of “sufficient resources to accurately account for certain transactions.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Amyris’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$3.88
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$3.10
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

20.10%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 AMRS Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Amyris common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

AMRS Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce NTNX Lawsuit; NTNX Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 12, 2019

Scheller v. Nutanix, Inc. 5:19-cv-01651 — On March 29, 2019, investors sued Nutanix, Inc. (“Nutanix” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the NTNX class action allege that they acquired Nutanix stock at artificially inflated prices between March 2,2018 and February 28, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the NTNX Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: NTNX) engages in the provision of cloud computing software that facilitates IT management.

Specifically, the Company says its software does so by accommodating different “cloud operating environments” and providing a “single point of control to manage IT infrastructure and applications at any scale.” Its customers include businesses and organizations in numerous industries such as: automotive, energy, financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, retail, technology, and telecommunications.

Nutanix is incorporated in Delaware and its headquarters are located in San Jose, California. Founded in 2009, the Company now employs 4,700 people worldwide.

Summary of Facts

Nutanix and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the Company’s lead generation spending from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Nutanix stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth began to emerge in December 2018, when two Nutanix officers made millions by selling their Nutanix stock.

Then, after the market closed on February 28, 2019, Nutanix issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second fiscal of 2019. In it, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Looking ahead, our third quarter guidance reflects the impact of inadequate marketing spending for pipeline generation and slower than expected sales hiring. We took a critical look at these areas and have taken actions to address them.”

In an ensuing conference call held that same day, both Individual Defendants acknowledged that, contrary to statements made during the Class Period, “Nutanix had held flat or decreased the ‘key’ driver of pipeline – lead generation.”

History Repeating Itself

As alleged in the March 29 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC on March 15, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “We plan to continue to invest in sales and marketing so that we can capitalize on our market opportunity, and as part of this, we intend to specifically expand our focus on opportunities with major accounts and large deals…”

On another form filed with the SEC on June 12, 2018, the Company stated in relevant part: “The increase in product revenue for the three and nine months ended April 30, 2018 reflects increased domestic and international demand for our solutions as we continue to penetrate and expand in global markets through increased sales and marketing activities.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on September 24, 2018, the Individual Defendants stated in relevant part: “We intend to grow our base of end customers by increasing our investment in sales and marketing…”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Nutanix’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$50.09
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$33.70
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

32.72%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 NTNX Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is May 28, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Nutanix common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

NTNX Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce CRBP Lawsuit; CRBP Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Kempf v. Corbus Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. et al 1:19-cv-10457-MBB — On March 12, 2019, investors sued Corbus Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. (“Corbus” or “the Company”) in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs in the CRBP class action allege that they acquired Corbus stock at artificially inflated prices between November 14, 2016 and February 28, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the CRBP Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Corbus (NASDAQ: CRBP) is a clinical stage drug company devoted to the creation and marketing of new medicine for the treatment of “inflammatory and fibrotic diseases.”

According to its website, the Company leverages its “industry-leading pipeline of endocannabinoid system-targeting drug candidates” to accomplish its objectives. Corbus also touts its lead product candidate, lenabasum, as “a novel, synthetic, oral, selective cannabinoid receptor type 2 (CB2) agonist designed to resolve chronic inflammation and fibrotic processes.”

The Company’s claims about lenabasum are at the crux of the March 12 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Corbus and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about lenabasum from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Corbus stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a February 28, 2109 article published on Seeking Alpha. Among other things, the article alleged that lenabasum, which was formerly known by other names, including anabasum, resunab and JBT-101, “failed every previous trial.” Specifically, the article alleged that the Company “changed the primary efficacy endpoint” of one study after it was “unblended to the results.” It also alleges that the Company’s “secondary endpoint data in its Phase 2 SSc trial also failed.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the March 12 complaint, Corbus and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “JBT-101 out-performed placebo in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Combined Response Index in diffuse cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS) score, reaching 33% at week 16, versus 0% for placebo.”

Then, on another form filed with the SEC on March 30, 2017, Corbus stated in pertinent part: “…the Company announced positive topline data from its Phase 2 study evaluating multiple doses of anabasum (fka JBT-0101 or Resunab) compared to placebo for the treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis (‘CF’).”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on November 8, 2017, the Company also stated in pertinent part: “In November 2016, we reported positive clinical data in a Phase 2 anabasum study for the treatment of systemic sclerosis. Following an end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA, we submitted a protocol to the FDA on March 31, 2017 for a Phase 3 study in systemic sclerosis. We also received protocol assistance from the EMA on the Phase 3 study design. We expect to commence the Phase 3 study in systemic sclerosis in the fourth quarter of 2017.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Corbus’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$6.94

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 CRBP Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is May 13, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Corbus common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

CRBP Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce CTL Lawsuit; CTL Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 11, 2019

Caliendo v. CenturyLink, Inc. et al 2:19-cv-01629-CBM_GJS — On March 6, 2019, investors sued CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. The CTL class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired CenturyLink stock at artificially inflated prices between May 10, 2018 and March 4, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the CTL Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: CTL) bills itself as “the second largest U.S. communications provider to global enterprise customers.”

In this role the Company says it provides numerous communications services to customers in the residential, business, wholesale and government sectors.

The Company, which adopted its current name in 2009, can trace its history to 1930, when William Clarke and Marie Williams purchased the Oak Ridge Telephone Company for $500 from F.E. Hogan, Sr. Back then, there were just 75 paid subscribers and the family operated the switchboard from Williams’ home.

Thirty-eight years after its inception, the business was incorporated as Central Telephone and Electronics. By this time, the Company had enjoyed considerable growth, serving 10,000 access lines in three states, under the leadership of Clarke M. Williams.

The Company continued to evolve through a series of transactions over the years. According to its website, CenturyLink finalized its acquisition of Level 3 Communications, Inc., in November 2017. CenturyLink claimed that by doing so, it allowed its network to connect “more than 350 metropolitan areas with more than 100,000 fiber-enabled, on-net buildings…” CenturyLink’s claims about this acquisition are at the crux of the March 6 complaint.

Summary of Facts

CenturyLink and five of its current and former officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operational and financial results during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about CenturyLink’s internal controls over certain accounting practices, including those related to the Level 3 Communications acquisition, from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused CenturyLink stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on March 4, 2019. That day, the Company announced it would not be able to meet the deadline for filing its annual report for the period ended December 31, 2018. It then attributed the delay to the discovery of “material weakness in internal controls over the Company’s revenue recording processes and the procedures for measuring assets and liabilities” related to the acquisition of Level 3 Communications, and the ensuing need for “additional review an testing with respect to those processes…”

A closer look…

As alleged in the March 6 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC on May 10, 2018, CenturyLink said in relevant part: “Management will continue to evaluate the Company’s controls over financial reporting as it continues the integration of Level 3.”

On another form filed with the SEC on August 9, 2018, the Company also stated in pertinent part: “Other than the internal controls related to the adoption of ASC 606 referenced above, there were no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second quarter of 2018 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on November 9, 2018, CenturyLink stated in relevant part: “We will continue to evaluate our internal controls over financial reporting as we continue the integration of Level 3.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on CenturyLink’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$12.97
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$12.15
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6.32%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 CTL Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is May 6, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in CenturyLink common stock using court-approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

CTL Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


Levi & Korsinsky Announce ARA Lawsuit; ARA Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce ARA Lawsuit; ARA Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Vandevar v. American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. et al 2:19-cv-09074-ES-MAH — On March 28, 2019, investors sued American Renal Holdings, Inc. (“American Renal” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs in the ARA class action allege that they acquired American Renal stock at artificially inflated prices between August 01, 2016 and March 27, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the ARA Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: ARA) says it is “is one of the largest dialysis services providers in the United States.” As such, the Company serves patients with the most advanced stage of chronic kidney disease, or End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD).

American Renal also says that it teams up with local nephrologists (doctors specializing in the treatment of kidney disease) to develop, own and operate dialysis clinics. By the end of 2018, the Company operated more than 200 dialysis clinics in 27 states and Washington, D.C., serving more than 16,000 patients with ESRD in partnership with approximately 400 local nephrologists.

Summary of Facts

American Renal and three of its current and/or former officers and directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operations and financial results during the Class period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about American Renal’s accounting practices from SEC filings and related material during the time in question. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused the Company’s stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired between November 9 2018 and March 27, 2019. First, the Company acknowledged on a form filed with the SEC that in October 2018, “SEC staff ‘requested that the Company voluntarily provide documents and information relating to certain revenue recognition, collections and related matters.’”

Then, before the Market opened on March 8, 2019, the Company filed a form with the SEC announcing that it  “would delay the filing of its earnings report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. At the time, the Company attributed the delay to an ongoing review of certain accounting practices.

Finally, after the market closed on March 27, 2019, American Renal announced the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer (one of the Individual Defendants) and that it would “restate its financial results for the fiscal years ended 2014 through 2017.” At that time, the Company also announced that the investigation into certain accounting practices was sill ongoing.

A closer look

As alleged in the March 28 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “Patient service operating revenues are reduced by the provision for uncollectible revenues to arrive at net patient service operating revenues. Provision for uncollectible accounts represents reserves established for amounts which patients are primarily responsible that we believe will not be collectible.”

Then, on another form filed with the SEC on March 6, 2018, the Company also stated in relevant part: “[M]anagement concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2017.”

Finally, on another form filed with the SEC on November 9, 2018, the Company stated in relevant part: “There have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the quarter ended September 30, 2018 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on American Renal’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$9.70
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$6.01
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

38.04%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 ARA Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is May 28, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in American Renal common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

ARA Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce NIO Lawsuit; NIO Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 10, 2019

Tan v. NIO Inc., et al 1:19-cv-01424-NGG-VMS — On March 12, 2019, investors sued NIO, Inc., (“NIO” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The NIO class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired NIO’s American Depositary Shares (ADS) at the artificially inflated prices between September 12, 2018, and March 5, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the NIO Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company  (NYSE: NIO) is a “pioneer in China’s premium electric vehicle market.” As such, NIO claims that it designs, co-manufactures, and sells “smart and connected premium electric vehicles…”

NIO says it introduced its first model, the EP9 supercar, three years ago and that it introduced “first volume manufactured electric vehicle, the ES8” to the public on December 16, 2017. NIO claims it started delivering the ES8 on Jun 28, 2018.

The Company also claims that it sells its vehicles “through our own sales network, including NIO Houses and our mobile application.”

NIO’s website indicates that the Company has offices in London, Munich, Shanghai, San Jose, California and “eight other locations. More than 500 people purportedly work at NIO’s North American headquarters and “global software development center,” in San Jose.

Summary of Facts

NIO and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operational and financial results during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain plans reductions in government subsidies for electric cars from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused NIO’s ADS to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out after the market closed on March 5, 2019. That’s when the Company released its earnings report for the fourth quarter of 2018 and disclosed that it would “be terminating its agreement with the Shanghai government to build its own manufacturing plant in Shanghai, and instead continue to contract with JAC Auto to build its cars.”

The Company also disclosed reductions in the deliveries of its electric vehicles between December 2018 and February 2019. At the time, the Company attributed the decline to “anticipation of subsidy reductions for electric vehicles in 2019.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the March 12 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a Registration Statement filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated that it is “developing our own manufacturing facility in Shanghai which we expect to be ready by the end of 2020.”

On the same Registration Statement, NIO also said that having its own manufacturing plant would allow it to “expand its manufacturing capability for the ET7 and future models,” and facilitate is ability to acquire its own Electric Vehicle manufacturing license.

Finally, during a conference call with analysts on November 11, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants addressed concerns about the anticipated reduction in government subsidies for electric vehicles. In this context he stated in pertinent part: “Of course, the subsidy in the next year will decrease. And we think this is not going to affect our gross margin that much because the sales price already includes the subsidy and this will not affect us that much.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on NIO’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$10.16
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$7.09
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

30.22%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 NIO Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is May 13, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in NIO common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

NIO Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce SPB Lawsuit; SPB Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 9, 2019

Wagner v. Spectrum Brands Legacy, Inc. et al 1:19-cv-178 — On March 7, 2019, investors sued Spectrum Brands Legacy, Inc. (“Spectrum” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The SPB class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Spectrum stock at artificially inflated prices between June 4, 2016 and April 25, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the SPB Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Formerly known as Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc., the Company (NYSE: SPB) is engaged in the creation, marketing and distribution of “branded consumer products.”

These goods range from consumer batteries to specialty pet supplies and personal care products. Some of Spectrum’s best-known brands include Rayovac, Kwikset, George Foreman, IAMS and Eukanuba.

Spectrum’s products are made available through retailers, wholesalers and associated outlets in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and the Asia-Pacific regions.

Summary of Facts

Spectrum and two of its former officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding information about the Company’s business practices, operations and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused about omitting truthful information about operational issues at some of its facilities from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Spectrum stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a press release issued by the Company on April 26, 2018. In it, Spectrum admitted that: “The challenges related to our two greenfield manufacturing and distribution projects were meaningfully greater than we expected.”

In particular, it stated: “As we brought our East Coast distribution center into our new Hardware & Home Improvement facility in Edgerton, Kansas at the end of February, we experienced facility-wide disruptions which hampered distribution capabilities materially in March. Our Global Auto Care facility in Dayton struggled at higher production levels in March, which led to significant inefficiencies and shipping challenges.”

That day, the Company also announced the resignation of its then-CEO and the appointment of his successor. In an ensuing conference call, the new CEO said the operational issues at the facilities couldn’t be fixed “overnight.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the March 7 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in an announcement pertaining to the construction of a manufacturing and logistics facility in Dayton, Ohio, at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in relevant part: “This new facility will improve our speed and efficiency while providing us room for further growth.”

Then, in another press release issued by the Company on January 26, 2017, Spectrum stated in pertinent part: “We are seeing the operating leverage benefits of our global infrastructure and shared services platform, as well as our continuous improvements of processes and strong cost reduction results in our plants and supply chains.”

Finally, in yet another press release issued by Spectrum on February 8, 2018, the Company stated in relevant part: “Our GAC U.S. footprint consolidation is now complete, which is important as we head into the peak spring and summer period. Also, our HHI distribution consolidation in Kansas is moving toward completion in February…”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Spectrum’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$94.23
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$75.01
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

20.40%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 SPB Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is May 6, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Spectrum common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

SPB Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce HCSG Lawsuit; HCSG Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 8, 2019

Koch v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. et al 2:19-cv-01227-ER — On March 22, 2019, investors sued Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (“Healthcare Services” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in the HCSG class action allege that they acquired Healthcare Services stock at artificially inflated prices between April 11, 2017 and March 4, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the HCSG lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Since its inception in 1976, the Company (NASDAQ: HCSG) has provided housekeeping/laundry and dining/nutrition services to the healthcare industry.

Healthcare Services says it employs more than 45,000 people and conducts business in 48 states. Its clients/customers include U.S. nursing homes, retirement communities, rehabilitation centers and hospitals.

Headquartered in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, the Company went public in 1983. As of March 13, 2019, it reportedly had more than 73 million shares of common stock “issued and outstanding.”

Summary of Facts

Healthcare Services and its CEO (collectively the “Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operations and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain accounting practices from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Healthcare Services stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a form the Company filed with the SEC on March 4, 2019. In it, Healthcare Services acknowledged that it had received a letter from the SEC in November 2017 “regarding an inquiry that the SEC was conducting into EPS calculation practices and requesting that the Company voluntarily provide certain information and documents relating to its EPS rounding and reporting practices.”

On the same form, the Company also revealed that it authorized its outside counsel “to conduct an internal investigation, under the direction of the Company’s Audit Committee, into matters related to the SEC subpoena” during the fourth quarter of 2018.

Finally, on that same day, Monocle published an article about the matter in which it stated in pertinent part: “Healthcare Service Group’s decade of apparent earnings manipulation through the ‘strategic rounding’ of its quarterly EPS has finally bitten the company and its investors.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the March 22 complaint, Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, during an earnings call on April 12, 2017, the Company’s CEO answered questions about prior allegations of EPS rounding, saying in pertinent part: “Well, I can tell you, without knowing exactly what article, or more specifically what iteration of articles you are referring to, I can tell you we believe our best efforts are spend actually running the company and delivering outcomes for our customers, our employees and all of our shareholders, not the latest and greatest investor sentiment or third-party articles and blogs.”

On the same form, the CEO also stated in pertinent part: “We’ve tripled the size of the company, customers, employees, revenues, profits. We’ve paid out more than $400 million in dividends during that time frame. And most importantly, we’ve positioned the company today to surpass that performance and deliver for all of our stakeholders over the next decade. So again, I think our track record of performance over the past 10 years really stands on its own.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Healthcare Services’ Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$37.74
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$32.78
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

13.14%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 HCSG Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is May 21, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Healthcare Services common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

HCSG Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce MAT Lawsuit; MAT Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 5, 2019

Wyatt v. Mattel, Inc. et al 2:19-cv-01646-PA-MAA — On March 6, 2019, investors sued Mattel, Inc. (“Mattel” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the MAT class action allege that they acquired Mattel stock at artificially inflated prices between February 7, 2019 and February 15, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the MAT Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Mattel (NASDAQ: MAT) bills itself as “a global learning, development and play company.” In this role, the Company says it promotes optimism and encourages children to discover their talents and abilities at a young age.

The Company says it also teams up with other businesses including “leading entertainment and technology companies” to create “inspiring and innovative products.” Some of Mattel’s best-known products include American Girl®, Barbie®, Fisher-Price®, Hot Wheels® and Thomas & Friends™. Its products are sold in at least 150 countries.

According to its website, Mattel employs more than 30,000 people worldwide and has operations in 40 countries and territories.

Summary of Facts

Mattel and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about product demand from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Mattel stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out when the Company provided its “2019 outlook” on February 15, 2019. One of the Individual Defendants confirmed the disappointing projections, saying in relevant part: “Turning to 2019, we expect gross sales to be flat in constant currency…This year we expect continued growth in Barbie and Hot Wheels though not at the same extent of 2018 levels and the stabilization of Fisher-Price by the end of the year.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the March 6 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants made several false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in an announcement made on February 7, 2019, the Company stated in pertinent part: “Mattel was the #1 global toy company in 2018, per NPD.”

In the same announcement, Mattel also stated in pertinent part: “Barbie® Gross Sales in the quarter increased 12% as reported and 15% in current currency, versus prior year, marking the fifth consecutive quarter of growth…”

In the same announcement, Mattel added in pertinent part: “Hot Wheels® Gross Sales for the quarter increased 9% as reported and 12% in constant currency, versus prior year, and reached the brand’s highest full year Gross Sales in its history.”

What the Company failed to disclose, however, was that “demand for the Company’s products, including Barbie and Hot Wheels, was declining,” and that “the Company had an excess of product supply.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Mattel’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$16.91
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$13.82
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

18.27%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 MAT Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Mattel common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

MAT Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce CORT Lawsuit; CORT Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 4, 2019

Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics Inc., et al 5:19-cv-01372-LHK — On March 14, 2019, investors sued Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. (“Corcept” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Corcept stock at artificially inflated prices between August 2, 2017 and February 5, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during the time in question. For more information on the CORT lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Corcept (NASDAQ: CORT) is a drug company that claims to “committed to improving patient lives through the discovery and development of drugs that address serious unmet medical needs related to excess cortisol activity.” These conditions include dangerous forms of cancer, mental illnesses and metabolic disorders.

To achieve its goal, the Company says it teams up with “numerous basic scientists and clinical researchers to find better ways to improve patient lives.” The Company also says these global partnerships have resulted in 30 investigative studies regarding possible uses for glucocorticoid receptor antagonists may have in the treatment of “serious and life-threatening diseases driven by cortisol dysregulation.”

According to the March 14 complaint, the FDA has approved a Corcept drug called Korlym for the treatment of “hyperglycemia secondary to hypercortisolism in adult patients with endogenous Cushing’s Syndrome.”

Summary of Facts

Corcept and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain conduct related to the promotion of Korlym, and the Company’s relationship with its only specialty pharmacy from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Corcept’s stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that occurred between January 25, 2019 and February 5, 2019. First, SIRF published a report “alleging that Corcept paid doctors to prescribe its drug Korlym for off-label uses.” Then, on January 31, 2019, the Company “forecast a sharp slowdown in the sales of Korlym…”

Finally, on February 5, 2019, Blue Orca Capital “published a report alleging that Corcept’s ‘sole specialty pharmacy and exclusive distributor is an undisclosed related party’ called Optime Care (‘Optime’).” Blue Orca Capital claimed that this “creates a material risk that the Company is using its captured pharmacy to boost sales, hide losses or engage in other financial shenanigans.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the March 14 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC on February 28, 2018, the Company stated in pertinent part: “Although physicians are permitted to prescribe drugs for indications other than those approved by the FDA, manufacturers are prohibited from promoting products for such off-label uses.”

On the same form, Corcept also said in pertinent part: “Although we believe our marketing materials and training programs for physicians do not constitute ‘off-label’ promotion of Korlym, the FDA may disagree.”

Finally, on the same form, the Company “stated that one specialty pharmacy, Optime Care, Inc., represents approximately 99 percent of the Company’s revenue.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Corcept’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 cort class action lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Corcept common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

cort class action lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce STMP Lawsuit; STMP Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 3, 2019

Grabisch v. Stamps.com, Inc., et al 2:19-cv-01497 — On February 28, 2019, investors sued Stamps.com, Inc. (“Stamps.com” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the STMP class action allege that they acquired Stamps.com stock at artificially inflated prices between May 3, 2017 and February 21, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the STMP lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: STMP) bills itself as “the leading provider of Internet-based postage solutions,” and “the first company to be approved by the U.S. Postal Service®  (USPS) to offer a software-only postage service that lets customers buy and print postage online.”

As such, it says that it caters to small businesses, home offices and online retailers. It also claims that it has more than 730,000 monthly subscribers.

The Company says provides its users with reliable and convenient means to print postage using their existing computer, printer and Internet connection. Stamps.com also claims that its service allows its customers to coordinate mailing and shipping operations more effectively and securely than they can via traditional means.

Summary of Facts

Stamps.com and three of its current and former senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the Company’s financial results from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Stamps.com stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a conference call conducted by the Company after the market closed on February 21, 2019. During the call, which Stamps.com held to discuss several matters, the Company’s chairman and CEO abruptly announced the termination of its shipping partnership with USPS. The announcement came as a shock because “USPS-related business” accounts for the vast majority of its revenue. In another shocking revelation, the Company also announced that it expected its 2019 revenue to drop by more than 5 percent.

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 28 complaint, Stamps.com and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued at the outset of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants stated in relevant part: ‘In addition to our overall revenue and earnings growth, during the first quarter we reached our highest level of paid customers, we saw continued strong growth in our shipping business areas, and we experienced strong contributions from all of our subsidiaries.”

In the same press release, the same person added in relevant part: “We remain very excited about our future prospects….”

Then, during an earnings call held on August 2, 2017, the same Individual Defendant stated in pertinent part: “the partnership with the Postal Service is continuing to be stronger and stronger…”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Stamps.com’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$198.08
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$83.65
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

57.77%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 STMP Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 29, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Stamps.com common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

STMP Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce WTW Lawsuit; WTW Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 2, 2019

Potts v. Weight Watchers International Inc., et al 1:19-cv-02005-WHP — On March 4, 2019, investors sued Weight Watchers International (“Weight Watchers” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the WTW class action allege that they acquired Weight Watchers stock at artificially inflated prices between May 4, 2018 and February 26, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the WTW Lawsuit, contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: WTW) is a global provider of weight management services. As such, it has divisions catering to clients in North America, Continental Europe, the United Kingdom, and other parts of the world.

Traditionally, the Company’s offerings included various products and services designed to help people lose weight and keep it off. Its driving force is the use of a “science-driven approach to help participants lose weight by forming healthy eating habits, eating smarter, getting more exercise and providing support.”

Weight Watchers generates revenue through various subscriptions, fees for workshops and related activities, sales of consumer products, and other sources.

According to the March 4 complaint, the Company “recently rebranded its self as ‘WW’ and tried to focus less on weight loss and more on maintaining general health.”

Summary of Facts

Weight Watchers and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) and Artal Group S.A. (which effectively controlled Weight Watchers during the Class Period) now stand accused of deceiving investors. They allegedly did so by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the time in question.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about subscriber growth from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Weight Watchers stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

The truth came out after trading ended on February 26, 2019. That’s when the Company issued a press release and held a conference call with investors and stock analysts to discuss its “actual 4Q2018 and FY18 results and financial prospects.” In doing so, the Company revealed that the subscriber count had again dipped to 3.9 million during the fourth quarter, and acknowledged that the decline would continue during the 2019 fiscal year.

A closer look…

As alleged in the March 4 complaint, the Company and /or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in remarks made at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Member engagement has been incredible with members staying longer than ever before. Average retention is now well over nine months.”

During a conference call with investors and stock analysts on May 3, 2018, the same Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “We ended the quarter with 4.6 million subscribers worldwide, the highest level in the history of Weight Watchers, driven by the enthusiastic global response to our new program.”

Finally, the Company filed a Registration Statement related to a secondary public offering being carried out for Artal Group S.A. with the SEC on May 14, 2018. In it, the Company stated in relevant part: “Our strong brand, together with the effectiveness of our program, loyal customer base, unparalleled network of meetings and leaders and strong digital offerings, enable us to attract and retain both new and returning customers.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Weight Watcher’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$29.57
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$19.37
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

34.50%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 wtw Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is May 3, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Weight Watchers common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

WTW Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


CAG Lawsuit, CAG Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces CAG Lawsuit; CAG Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 19, 2019

West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc. et al 1:19-cv-01323 — On February 22, 2019, investors sued Conagra Brands, Inc., (“Conagra” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. Plaintiffs in the CAG class action allege that they acquired Conagra stock at artificially inflated prices between June 27, 2018 and December 19, 2018 (the “Class Period”); or that they did so based on statements in Offering Documents related to the Company’s secondary public offering on or about October 9, 2018. They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during those times. For more information on the CAG lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Chicago-based Company (NYSE: CAG) makes and promotes packaged foods for retail customers and the food service industry.

According to its website, the Company has operations in approximately 50 locations. Conagra also has more than 17,000 employees and generates $11 billion in revenue. Its brand portfolio includes dozens of well-known food products.

On June 27, 2018, the Company announced that it acquired Pinnacle in a “cash and stock transaction valued at approximately $10.9 billion (the “Transaction”). Conagra secured some of the funding for the acquisition through a secondary public offering initiated on or about October 9, 2018.

In addition to the Company’s statements during the Class Period, Conagra’s statements in Offering Documents related to the SPO are at the crux of the February 22 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Conagra and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operations and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about Conagra’s acquisition of Pinnacle from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Conagra stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

Numerous Conagra officers and directors, and 15 other businesses that helped with the preparation and issuance of, and or signed the Offering Documents related to the SPO are also named as defendants in the February 22 complaint.

The truth came out in a December 20, 2018 press release in which the Company announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. The timeframe encompassed the first few weeks after Conagra assumed ownership of Pinnacle. Specifically, the results revealed that, “net sales for the Pinnacle segment” for the first 31 days after closing totaled $259 million, which fell short of expectations “due to a weak performance across a range of significant brands.”

On a conference call held that day, one of the Individual Defendants also acknowledged that there had been a, “deterioration in the legacy Pinnacle business over the course of the calendar year 2018” as “growth stalled” for three of Pinnacle’s most significant brands.

Following the disclosures, analysts weighed in, questioning the Company’s due diligence prior to the acquisition.

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 22 complaint, Conagra and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a conference call held at the beginning of the Class Period to discuss the Transaction, one of the Individual Defendants said the Company has, “proven track record of executing strategic transactions,” and that it would be able to “implement a smooth integration process.”

Then, at an industry conference held on September 4, 2018, the same Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “With respect to Pinnacle, this is as much of a no brainer of a deal as I think you’re going to see.”

At the same event, the same Individual Defendant “assured investors that the Company had done a thorough due diligence on Pinnacle, saying in relevant part: “I think the way to think about this is we’ve been looking at this for a while. And we know food businesses. We’ve been spending our whole career in the food industry. So, we’ve been very clear-eyed from the beginning as to what the synergy prospects were with this company…”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Conagra’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$29.09
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$24.28
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

16.53%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 CAG Lawsuit, CAG Class Action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 23, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Conagra common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

CAG Lawsuit, CAG Class Action

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


Levi & Korsinsky Announce VNDA Lawsuit; VNDA Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce VNDA Lawsuit; VNDA Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 18, 2019

Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al 1:19-cv-01108-APR-LB — On February 25, 2019, investors sued Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Vanda” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The VNDA class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Vanda stock at artificially inflated prices between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the VNDA lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: VNDA) is a self-described global biopharmaceutical company. As such, it specializes in the development and mass marketing of new and unique treatments to address significant unmet medical needs.

Vanda’s products include HETLIOZ (tasimelteon), which is for the treatment of non-24-hour sleep-wake disorders; and Fanapt (iloperidone), which is used to treat schizophrenia.

The company has been incorporated since 2002 and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. In addition to the United States, Vanda promotes its products in Europe and Israel.

Summary of Facts

Vanda and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and operations during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about Vanda’s conduct from SEC filings and related material during the Class Period. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Vanda stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events occurring on October 22, 2018 and February 11, 2019. First, the FDA sent Vanda a warning letter based on its review of the Company’s website, which it found, “false and misleading.” The website raised concerns because it allegedly failed to “disclose risks of Fanapt and Hetlioz in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.”

Then, on February 11, Aurelius Value published a report revealing “a previous unreported qui tam lawsuit which disclosed Vanda’s years of fraudulent promotion of Fanapt and Hetlioz.” The same report about the Company and lawsuit also disclosed Vanda’s alleged scheme to “defraud the government with fraudulent reimbursements.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 25 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a conference call held at the outset of the Class Period to discuss its third quarter 2015 earnings, Vanda said in pertinent part: “We are seeking to stabilize the Fanapt revenue with active commercial efforts.”

In another example, a form filed with the SEC on February 17, 2017 included certifications signed by the Individual Defendants in accordance with federal law. In the certifications, they attested to “the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on February 15, 2018, the Company discussed the “uses and marketing of Fanapt and Hetlioz,” stating in relevant part: “In January 2014, HETLIOZ was approved in the U.S. for the treatment of Non-24. Non-24 is a serious, rare and chronic circadian rhythm disorder characterized by the inability to entrain (synchronize) the master body clock with the 24-hour day-night cycle. HETLIOZ is the first FDA approved treatment for Non-24.”

On the same form, the Company also stated in pertinent part: “Fanapt is a product for the treatment of schizophrenia. In May 2009, the FDA granted U.S. marketing approval of Fanapt for the acute treatment of schizophrenia in adults.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Vanda’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$18.95
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$18.00
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

5.01%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 VNDA Class Action, VNDA Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 26, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Vanda common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

VNDA Class Action, VNDA Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


Aveo Pharmaceuticals Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce AVEO Lawsuit; AVEO Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 15, 2019

Hackel v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al 1:19-cv-01722-AT — On February 25, 2019, investors sued AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (“AVEO” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The AVEO class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired AVEO stock at artificially inflated prices between August 4, 2016 and January 31, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the AVEO lawsuit, please contact us today.

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: AVEO) is a biopharmaceutical company known as GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc., until it adopted its current name in 2005. As such, it says it is “dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need.”

To that end, AVEO has adopted a strategy in which it retains the rights to its “oncology portfolio” in North America while it engages in partnerships for the development and commercialization of its products elsewhere.

The Company’s lead product candidate is tivozanib or FOTIVDA®, which was created to treat advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (“RCC”). AVEO claims that it is approved in the European Union, as well as Norway and Iceland, for the first-line treatment of adult patients with RCC and related conditions.

AVEO’s statements about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of tivozanib and related issues are at the crux of the February 25 complaint.

Summary of Facts

AVEO and three of its current and/or former senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operational and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the viability of AVEO’s lead product candidate from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused the Company’s stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a Boston Business Journal article published on January 31, 2019. In it, the Journal reported that, “AVEO would not submit its tivozanib application for FDA approval ‘due to a recommendation from the agency [to] gather more late-stage testing results. Specifically, the FDA is asking for additional survival data, echoing concerns that led to the agency’s rejection of the same drug in 2013.’”

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 25 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the outset of the Class Period, the Company stated in relevant part: “In May 2016, we initiated enrollment and treatment of patients in our new phase 3 trial of tivozanib in the third-line treatment of patients with refractory RCC. The TIVO-3 trial was designed to address the OS concerns from the TIVO-1 trial presented in the June 2013 complete response letter from the FDA and to support a request for the regulatory approval of tivozanib in the United States…”

On another form filed with the SEC on March 22, 2017, AVEO also stated in relevant part: “The TIVO-3 trial passed an initial safety data assessment in February 2017.”

Finally, on yet another form filed with the SEC on March 13, 2018, the Company stated in pertinent part: “The primary objective of the TIVO-3 trial is to show improved PFS. Secondary endpoints include OS, safety and ORR.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on AVEO’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$1.77
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.70
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

60.45%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 aveo lawsuit, aveo class action lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 26, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in AVEO common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

aveo lawsuit, aveo class action lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us. 


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce CVS Class Action; CVS Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 14, 2019

Anarkat v. CVS Health Corporation, et al 1:19-cv-01725-AT — On February 25, 2019, investors sued CVS Health Corporation (“CVS Health” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the CVS class action allege that they acquired CVS Health stock at artificially inflated prices between May 21, 2015 and February 20, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the CVS Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: CVS) bills itself as the largest pharmacy health care provider in the United States.

As such, CVS Health says it has more than 9,800 retail locations in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Brazil. The Company also says CVS Pharmacy serves 5 million customers per day and that it has managed or filled 2.5 billion prescriptions. According to its website, CVS Health employs approximately 290,000 people

The Company is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, and its history dates to 1892. It was known as CVS Caremark Corporation until it adopted its current moniker in 2014.

In 2015, the Company acquired Omnicare, Inc., (“Omnicare”), a “provider of pharmaceuticals and related pharmacy services to long-term care facilities and a provider of specialty pharmacy and commercialization services for the bio-pharmaceutical industry.”

The Company’s claims and failure to disclose certain information about the acquisition are at the crux of the February 25 complaint.

Summary of Facts

CVS Health and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operations and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of withholding truthful information about CVS Health’s financial condition and expected earnings from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused the Company’s stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out when the Company released its fourth quarter and full year financial and operating results on February 20, 2019. At that time, the Company also provided 2019 full year guidance. In that context CVS Health revealed that its adjusted earnings in 2019 would fall short of market estimates and cited “rising costs and poor results related to the Company’s 2015 acquisition of Omnicare.”

Fortune and The Motley Fool also published articles about the issue that day.

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 25 complaint, CVS Health and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release about the acquisition issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “With the acquisition of Omnicare, CVS Health will significantly expand its ability to dispense prescriptions in assisted living and long term care facilities, serving the senior patient population.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on February 9, 2016, the Company also discussed the Omnicare acquisition stating in relevant part: “On August 18, 2015, we completed our acquisition of Omnicare, broadening our base of pharmacy care to a new dispensing channel, long-term care pharmacy.”

The Company reiterated that statement on forms filed with the SEC on February 9, 2017 and February 14, 2018.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on CVS Health’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$69.88
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$64.22
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

8.10%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 CVS Class Action CVS Lawsuit 1

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 26, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in CVS Health common stock using court-approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

CVS Class Action CVS Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces TAP Lawsuit; TAP Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 6, 2019

Mathes v. Molson Coors Brewing Company et al 1:19-cv-01162 — On February 15, 2019, investors sued Molson Coors Brewing Company (“Molson Coors” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in the TAP class action allege that they acquired Molson Coors stock at artificially inflated prices between February 14, 2017 and February 11, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the TAP lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: TAP) is a globally recognized beverage business that makes and sells beer, among other types of drinks.

As such, Molson Coors boasts a history dating to the 18th century that has featured numerous mergers – including a few between industry giants – over the years. The Company’s current iteration is the result of a “merger of equals” between Molson and Coors in 2005, and several ensuing transactions.

According to its website, the Company ranked as the world’s third largest brewer as of 2016. Its products are sold in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.

Summary of Facts

Molson Coors and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and operations during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain calculations and the efficacy of its internal controls over financial reporting from SEC filings and similar material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Molson Coors stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out before the market opened on February 12, 2019. At that time, the Company announced that its “previously consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 should be restated and no longer be relied upon.”

In a more detailed explanation the Company also stated: “As part of preparing its 2018 financial statements, the Company identified errors in the accounting for income taxes related to the deferred tax liabilities for its partnership in MillerCoors, LLC (“MillerCoors”).

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 15 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class period stated that: “the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective, excluding the internal control over financial reporting at its recently acquired stake in MillerCoors LLC.”

Then, in certifications accompanying another form filed with the SEC on February 14, 2018, the Individual Defendants attested to “the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.”

On the same form, the Company stated that its internal control over financial reporting was “effective as of December 31, 2017.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Molson Coors’ Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$65.36
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$59.19
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

9.44%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 TAP Class Action TAP Lawsuit Molson Coors

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 16, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Molson Coors common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

TAP Class Action TAP Lawsuit Molson Coors

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


AVP Class Action AVP Lawsuit Avon

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces AVP Lawsuit; AVP Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 5, 2019

Bevinal v. Avon Products Inc., et al 1:19-cv-01420-CM — On February 14, 2019, investors sued Avon Products, Inc. (“Avon” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the AVP class action allege that they acquired Avon stock at artificially inflated prices between August 2, 2016 and August 2, 2017 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the AVP Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Avon (NYSE: AVP) makes and markets beauty products and related items, which are sold directly to its representatives. The Company’s representatives or associates then sell them to customers around the world.

According to its website, Avon boasts a ”network of millions of beauty entrepreneurs across the world.” These include part-time “beauty advisors,” who supplement their incomes by selling Avon products to people they know, and “full-time beauty entrepreneurs” who derive all of their income from selling the Company’s goods. In either case, they are classified as independent contractors rather than employees.

The Company divides its global operations by geographic region, namely: Europe, the Middle East and Africa, South Latin America, North Latin America, and Asia Pacific. As of 2016, the Company had sales operations in nearly 60 countries and territories.

According to the February 14 complaint, Brazil is the Company’s single largest market based on revenue and the number of sales representatives.

As also noted in the complaint, the Company also had more than 440 million shares outstanding as of November 2, 2018.

Summary of Facts

Avon and three of its three of its current and/or former officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain accounting practices and methods for recruiting representatives in Brazil from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing soy, they allegedly caused Avon stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came when the Company issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2017 financial results and held related conference call on August 3, 2017. During the call, one of the Individual Defendants admitted that, contrary to its prior statements, “the remedial actions in Brazil [i.e., stricter credit terms applied to recruiting new representatives] were negatively impacting active representatives and revenue” there.

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 14 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release and related conference call held at the outset of the Class Period, the Company reported “an increase in new representatives in Brazil,” and attributed the increase to, “strong and consistent recruiting programs and onboarding of new representatives.” However, the Company did not disclose that in reality, it had “significantly loosened its credit terms in Brazil to recruit new representatives.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on November 3, 2016, Avon blamed an increase in bad debt to “the macroeconomic environment in Brazil,” rather than the changes it made to credit terms in order to recruit representatives and “boost revenue” there.

Finally, on a February 16, 2017, conference call held to discuss the Company’s fourth quarter 2016 results, one of the Individual Defendants acknowledged the true cause of the bad debt, and said planned corrective actions could have an adverse affect on “New representative growth.

Although Avon’s stock price fell following the revelation, the Company allegedly made positive and therefore misleading, statements that “the Brazil bad debt had been fully accounted for in the fourth quarter” to halt the losses.

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Avon’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$3.36
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$3.00
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

10.71%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 AVP Lawsuit, AVP Class Action Avon

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 15, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Avon common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

AVP Class Action AVP Lawsuit Avon

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces LXRX Lawsuit; LXRX Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 22, 2019

Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al 4:19-cv-00301 — On January 28, 2019, investors sued Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lexicon” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The LXRX class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Lexicon stock at artificially inflated prices between March 11, 2016 and January 17, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the LXRX lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: LXRX) is a self-described “fully integrated biopharmaceutical company.”

As such, Lexicon says it “is applying a unique approach to gene science based on Nobel Prize-winning technology to discover and develop precise medicines for people with serious, chronic conditions.”

As detailed in the January 28 complaint, Lexicon teamed up with Sanofi S.A. (“Sanofi”), a French multinational pharmaceutical company, in November 2015. The Company did so to further the global development, promotion and commercialization of one of its “orally-delivered small molecule drug candidates.”

The deal granted Sanofi “exclusive, worldwide royalty-bearing rights and license to develop, manufacture and commercialize Sotagliflozin.” Meanwhile, Lexicon, which is “responsible for all clinical development activities relating to type 1 diabetes,” retained “an exclusive option to co-promote and have a significant role, in collaboration with Sanofi, in the commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the United States.”

Claims made about Sotagliflozin, which was renamed Zynquista for commercial purposes, are at the crux of the January 28 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Lexicon and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business and compliance practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the safety and efficacy of Sotagliflozin from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Lexicon stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired between on January 17 and January 18, 2019. First, Lexicon announced that, “the Advisory Committee had ‘voted eight to eight on the question of whether the overall benefits of [Lexicon’s product] Zynquista (Sotagliflozin) outweighed the risks to support approval…’”

Then, in a Motley Fool article detailing the FDA Advisory Committee’s deadlock published the next day raised additional concerns, saying in pertinent part: “The impasse means investors have no way of knowing the path forward for the drug candidate.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 28 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in an annual report filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “ Data from the [Phase 2] study showed that treatment with sotagliflozin demonstrated statistically significant benefits in the primary and multiple secondary endpoints.”

Then, in another annual report filed with the SEC on March 6, 2017, Lexicon also said that it had “reported positive top-line primary efficacy endpoint data from two pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials of sotagliflozin in type 1 diabetes patients.”

Finally, in another annual report filed with the SEC on March 1, 2018, Lexicon used only generic language to describe the “risk that an NDA  [New Drug Application] could fail to meet FDA regulatory hurdles, saying: “There can be no assurance that the FDA will accept an NDA for filing and, even if accepted for filing, that approval will be granted.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Lexicon’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$7.70
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$5.96
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

22.59%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 LXRX Class Action LXRX Lawsuit Lexicon Pharmaceuticals

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Lexicon common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

LXRX Class Action LXRX Lawsuit Lexicon Pharmaceuticals

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces GE Lawsuit; GE Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 21, 2019

Birnbaum v. General Electric Company et al 1:19-cv-01013 — On February 1, 2019, investors sued General Electric Company (“GE” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the GE class action allege that they acquired GE stock at artificially inflated prices between October 12, 2018 and October 29, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the GE Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: GE) bills itself as a “digital industrial company,” with a history that spans more than 100 years.

As such, GE has numerous divisions, including its Industrials segment. GE Power is the Company’s largest business within this segment and creates one-third of global energy. The Company also says that the vast majority of all global power transmission utilities are equipped with GE Power’s technology and that its software manages 40 percent of the world’s energy.

Finally, the Company says that its acquisition of Alstom’s Thermal Power in 2015 has allowed it to provide “even more innovative technologies” to expand its reach and help more people.

Summary of Facts

GE and its CEO/chairman (the “Individual Defendant”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain accounting practices and related investigations from SEC filings and similar material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused GE stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out when the Company filed its “2018 third quarter form 10-Q” with the SEC on October 30, 2018. In it, GE finally disclosed the full extent of the investigation into its accounting practices. It said in pertinent part: “Following our announcement on October 1, 2018 about the expected non-cash goodwill impairment charge related to GE’s Power business… the SEC expanded the scope of its investigation to include that charge as well.” GE also announced that “[s]taff from the DOJ are also investigating these matters.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 1 complaint, GE made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated that it was “delaying its third quarter 2018 financial results until October 30, 2018.” At the time it said it was doing so to “allow GE Chairman and CEO Larry Culp to complete initial business reviews and site visits following his appointment on October 1.”

In the same press release, the Company also stated that Culp would “share his initial observations, with more detail expected in early 2019.”

What the Company had an obligation to share but failed to disclose was that: the SEC had expanded its investigation into its accounting practices; that the SEC was investigating the GE Power charge; that the DOJ was also investigating GE’s accounting practices, including the GE Power charge. The Company also failed to disclose the potential consequences based on the results.

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on GE’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$11.16
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$10.18
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

8.78%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 

GE Lawsuit GE Class Action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 2, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in GE common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

 

GE Class Action GE Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Investigates RVLT Lawsuit; RVLT Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 15, 2019

Glavan v. Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc., et al 1:19-cv-000980 — On January 31, 2019, investors sued Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc. (“Revolution Lighting” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the RVLT class action allege that they acquired Revolution Lighting stock at artificially inflated prices between March 14, 2014 and November 14, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the RVLT class action, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: RVLT) is engaged in the provision of LED lighting for customers in “industrial, commercial and government markets in the United States, Canada, and internationally.”

Specifically, Revolution Lighting says it “designs, engineers and manufactures an extensive line of high-quality interior and exterior LED lamps and fixtures, including signage and control systems.” The Company also says that it markets and distributes its products “markets and distributes its products through a network of regional and national independent sales representatives and distributors, as well as through energy savings companies and national accounts.”

The Company is incorporated in Delaware and based in Stamford, Connecticut.

Summary of Facts

Revolution Lighting and three of its current and former officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

In particular, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the recognition of revenue for certain transactions; the efficacy of its internal controls over financial reporting; and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Revolution Lighting stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that transpired between October 17, 2018 and November 14, 2018. First, the Company released its preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2018, which fell well short of expectations. Then, on October 19, 2018, Revolution Lighting announced “an ongoing investigation by the SEC regarding certain revenue recognition practices including bill and hold transactions that occurred between 2014 and the second quarter of 2018.” Finally, on November 14, the Company announced that its Transaction Committee was considering the CEO’s “updated proposal” to take the Company private, and cited the SEC investigation as part of his reason for wanting to do so.

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 31 complaint, Revolution Lighting and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in an annual report filed with the SEC at the outset of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “We recognize revenue for our products upon shipment or delivery to customers in accordance with respective contractual arrangements, provided no significant obligations remain and collection is probable.”

The same report included certifications signed by two of the Individual Defendants attesting that “the financial information contained therein was accurate and that it disclosed any material changes to the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.”

Then, in a quarterly report filed with the SEC on May 12, 2014, the Company stated in relevant part: “During the second quarter of 2014, the Company implemented new accounting systems and related modifications of processes and controls at its Relume and Lumificient subsidiaries.”

Finally, in a quarterly report filed with the SEC on November 5, 2015, Revolution Lighting again referred to its revenue recognition, stating in pertinent part: “The Company recognizes revenue from fixed-price and modified fixed-price contracts for turnkey energy conservation projects using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Revolution Lighting’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$1.40
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.85
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

39.28%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 rvlt lawsuit rvlt class action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 1, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Revolution Lighting common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

rvlt class action rvlt lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce GSM Lawsuit; GSM Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 13, 2019

Treankler v. Ferroglobe PLC et al 1:19-cv-00629-RA — On January 22, 2019, investors sued Ferroglobe PLC (“Ferroglobe” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The GSM class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Ferroglobe stock at artificially inflated prices between August 21, 2018 and November 26, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the GSM lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Ferroglobe (NASDAQ: GSM) is now among “the largest producers of a wide variety of metal alloys and other metallic products.”

As such, Ferroglobe says it relies on state-of-the-art-technology to provide the best products, “which are critical ingredients in many industrial and consumer products.” The Company claims that taking this approach put it “at the forefront of silicon-based alloys production, but also provide manganese, ferrosilicon alloys and silica fume among others.”

In all, the Company has four business divisions or segments, and operations in Spain, United States, France, Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Venezuela and China. Most of its customers are engaged in some sort of manufacturing or production.

Summary of Facts

Ferroglobe and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants” are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the demand for its products from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Ferroglobe stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on November 26, 2018, when the Company reported “poor financial results” for the third quarter 2018. One of the Individual Defendants then attributed the lackluster results to “market conditions in our main products [that] deteriorated through Q3.”

On a conference call held to discuss the financial results with analysts the next day, the same Individual Defendant stated that “the most significant driver of the Q3 results was reduced pricing, specifically average sales price for silicon metal declined 4.9% versus Q2 2018 [due to] silicon production at high rates, the impact of customers stocking up in anticipation of the trade case, and “availability of aluminum scrap.” He also stated that the sales of silicon metal “were impacted by the availability of aluminum scrap, which is now burdened by a 25% tariff on imports from the U.S. into China.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 22 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the one of the Individual Defendants stated in pertinent part: “Prices of our products have remained broadly stable overall, and current supply/demand dynamics in our industry should support continued healthy pricing.”

Then, during a conference call with analysts held on August 22, 2018, the same person also stated in pertinent part: “despite some pricing declines in the U.S. an in European indices, Ferroglobe maintained a flat realized average selling price for silicon metal, reflecting a well-managed commercial strategy and a good mix of fixed and index price contracts.”

On the same conference call, the same person added: “the overall supply/demand tension in the market, as we as increasing input costs, provide good reason to expect prices [of silicon metal] to remain broadly stable around these levels.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Ferroglobe’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$4.77
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$1.80
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

62.26%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 GSM Class Action GSM Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 25, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Ferroglobe common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

GSM Class Action GSM Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces TYME Lawsuit; TYME Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 12, 2019

Canas v. Tyme Technologies, Inc., et al 1:19-cv-00843-RA — On January 28, 2019, investors sued Tyme Technologies, Inc. (“Tyme” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the TYME class action allege that they acquired Tyme stock at artificially inflated prices between March 14, 2018 and January 18, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the TYME lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Tyme (NASDAQ: TYME) is a clinical-stage biotechnology company engaged in the development of cancer treatments “that are intended to be broadly effective across a range of tumor types, while maintaining patient’s quality of life with relatively low toxicity profiles.”

The Company, which has been in business since 2011 says its “therapeutic approach” differs from that employed by other biotech companies. Specifically, Tyme says its approach “is designed to take advantage of a cancer cell’s innate metabolic requirements to compromise its defenses, leading to cell death and exposure to the body’s immune system.”

The Company also says its lead product candidate, SM-88, is an oral amino acid-based therapy with a profile that is backed by more than five years of clinical data in more than 100 cancer patients in which the disease has spread. Tyme’s claims about SM-88 are at the crux of the January 28 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Tyme and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the status of a Phase II clinical trial for SM-88 from SEC filings and related information. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Tyme stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired on January 18, 2019. First, the Company reported results from the Phase II study, which it characterized as “positive.” In doing so, however, the Company revealed that the trial did not include a control group and that its announcement “merely compared survival data to historical controls.”

In an article assessing the situation published that day, The Motley Fool noted: “The problem with historical controls is that it’s really hard to know if the 14 patients have the same characteristics as the patients who were in the previous clinical trials. And even if the patients were fairly similar, the history of best standard of care has generally improved over time, so historical controls has typically gotten better for most types of cancer.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 28 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued on April 9, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants “touted the Company’s recent success” and stated in relevant part: “We are now fully focused on successfully achieving multiple data milestones over the next 12 months.”

Then, in another press release issued on June 12, 2018, the same Individual Defendant also said in pertinent part: “We are highly encouraged by the data with SM-88 from these studies in terms of the apparent safety and efficacy shown by the drug, as well as the breadth of cancer indications for which responses were observed…”

Finally, an annual report filed with the SEC on June 13, 2018, contained only generic, standard language pertaining to the Company’s “lack of experience completing Phase II clinical trials or commercializing pharmaceutical products. It simply stated: “We have no history of completing large-scale, pivotal Phase II or III clinical trials or commercializing pharmaceutical products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Tyme’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$3.73
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$2.41
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

35.39%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the Class Period

 TYME Class Action TYME Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 29, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Tyme common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

TYME Lawsuit, TYME Class Action

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces XXII Lawsuit; XXII Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 11, 2019

Bull v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., et al 1:19-cv-00409-NGG-ST — On January 21, 2019, investors sued 22nd Century Group, Inc., (“22nd Century” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The XXII class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired 22nd Century stock at artificially inflated prices between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more about the XXII Lawsuit, please contact us today.

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (NYSE:XXII) engages in “the research, development, licensing, manufacturing, and worldwide sales and distribution” of tobacco varying nicotine levels.

Specifically, the Company claims that it can produce tobacco “with up to 97% less nicotine than conventional tobacco – as well as plants with relatively high nicotine levels.”

The Company’s history dates to 1998, when Joseph Pandolfino founded it “to provide funding to North Carolina State University (NCSU) for a research and development collaboration on nicotine biosynthesis in the tobacco plant.”

In ensuing years, the Company developed its proprietary technology and continued its research with several partners. 22nd Century became a publicly traded company in 2011 and formed a partnership with British American Tobacco (“BAT”). However, 22nd Century’s partnership with BAT ended in 2017.

Summary of Facts

22nd Century and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the susceptibility of its stock to certain types of manipulation from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused 22nd Century stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired on February 2, 2018 and  October 25, 2018. In the first instance, a Seeking Alpha contributor, Fuzzy Panda Research, stated that the Company used a “years’ long ‘rampant paid stock promotion’ scheme to inflate 22nd Century’s share price.” The article also noted that “the sponsors of some of the articles from 2014 through 2017 were undisclosed.”

Then, on October 25, another Seeking Alpha published another article by the same contributor “suggested the SEC is actively investigating 22nd Century Group for its involvement in a potential pump and dump scheme.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 21 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated that its “stock price was subject to volatility, but failed to disclose its stock could experience volatility due to manipulation.”

Another form filed with the SEC on March 8, 2017, also included certifications signed by the Individual Defendants in accordance with federal law “attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud

Finally, on another form filed with the SEC on March 7, 2018, the Company reiterated that its “stock price was subject to volatility, but failed to disclose its stock could experience volatility due to manipulation.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on 22nd Century’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$2.56
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$2.45
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

                 4.29%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 XXII Class Action XXII Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in 22nd Century common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

XXII Class Action XXII Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Investigates LHSIF Lawsuit; LHSIF Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

January 31, 2019

Lin v. Liberty Health Sciences, Inc., et al 1:19-cv-00161-LTS — On January 7, 2019, investors sued Liberty Health Sciences, Inc. (“Liberty” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Liberty stock at artificially inflated prices between June 28, 2018 and December 3, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more on the LHSIF Lawsuit, contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (OTC: LHSIF) was launched to acquire and operate U.S. – based companies in the medical cannabis market.”

As such, the Company says it, “adds value to acquired companies” through its expertise in the field and through its proprietary processes. Today, it is primarily engaged in the “production and distribution of medical cannabis through its wholly-owned subsidiary, DFMMJ LLC,” or Liberty Health Sciences, Ltd.

As set forth in the January 7 complaint, Liberty also has “longstanding ties” with Aphria, Inc., another cannabis distributor and producer. Specifically, the complaint notes that Aphria CEO and co-founder Victor Neufield also became the chairman of Liberty; and that Aphria co-founder and chief agronomist Cole Cacciavillanii also joined Liberty as an executive. As a result, the complaint alleges, “Liberty was heavily influenced by Aphria and individuals involved in the management of Aphria.”

Summary of Facts

Liberty and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about Liberty’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the purpose of certain transactions and acquisitions from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Liberty stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that began when Aphria announced that it had “sold off its stake in Liberty” in September 2018, and continued in December 2018. On December 3, 2018, Quintessential Capital Management and Hindenburg Research issued a report accusing Aphria of being a participant in a scheme “involving the acquisition of shell companies at artificially inflated prices.”

Then, on December 6, 2018, the mainstream media followed up on a second report issued by Hindenburg Research. Specifically, the Windsor Star published an article detailing Aphria’s ties to Liberty and related allegations.

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 7 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in an Annual Information Form (the “2018 AIF) released on June 28, 2018, the Company detailed an Investor Rights Agreement, stating in pertinent part: “Concurrently with the completion of the Business Combination, Liberty entered into an investor rights agreement (the “Investor Rights Agreement”) pursuant to which, among other things, Aphria is entitled to certain director nomination and pre-emptive rights.”

In the 2018 AIF, Liberty also detailed its relationship with the Serruya family, which “holds a large stake in both Liberty and Aphria.” Within this context, the Company stated in pertinent part: “On February 5, 2018, it was announced that a group of buyers led by members of the Serruya family had entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Aphria to purchase all of the Common Shares in the Company owned by Aphria that are not subject to CSE escrow requirements over the course of the next two and a half years.”

Finally, in a document called Management’s Discussion & Analysis (the “2018 MD&A”) also issued on the same day, the Company included examples of “Liberty and Aphria’s commingling interests in acquiring other businesses.” In this context Liberty stated in relevant part: “In February 2018, the Company entered into a definitive agreement with Aphria Inc. (“Aphria”) to acquire Aphria’s minority interests in Copperstate Farms, LLC and Copperstate Farms Investors, LLC (collectively, “Copperstate”), through a purchase of Aphria’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Aphria (Arizona) Inc., for a purchase price of $20.0 million.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Liberty’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$1.06
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.70
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

33.96%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 LHSIF Lawsuit; LHSIF Class Action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 8, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Liberty common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

LHSIF Class Action LHSIF Lawsuit

 

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Investigate AXGN Lawsuit; AXGN Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Einhorn v. AxoGen, Inc., et al 8:19-cv-00069-EAK-AAS — On January 9, 2019, investors sued AxoGen, Inc., (“AxoGen” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida. The AXGN class action alleges that Plaintiffs acquired AxoGen stock at artificially inflated prices between August 7, 2017 and December 18, 2018 (the “Class Period”); or in connection with the Company’s November 2017 or May 2018 SPOs. They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the AXGN Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, AxoGen (NASDAQ: AXGN) is “the leading company focused specifically on the science, development and commercialization of technologies for peripheral nerve regeneration and repair.”

As such, it creates and provides “products and technologies” that are “designed to overcome fundamental challenges in nerve reconstruction and offer off-the-shelf solutions to surgeons for a wide variety of peripheral nerve damage.” AxoGen say reconstructive plastic surgeons, hand surgeons and oral and maxillofacial surgeons use its products “in a wide variety of nerve repair surgeries.”

Summary of Facts

AxoGen and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about AxoGen’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about AxoGen’s sales and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused the Company’s stock to traded at artificially prices during the time in question.

Along with the Individual Defendants, one senior officer and seven directors who either signed or authorized the signing of allegedly false and misleading Registration Statements for the SPOs; and five companies that served as underwriters for the SPOs are named as defendants in the January 9 complaint.

The truth came in a report issued by Seligman Investments on December 18, 2018. Among other things, the report included statements that: ”former employees allege channel stuffing and backdating of revenue, that the number of active accounts may be overstated by a factor of ten, that the Company’s ‘growth [i]s driven by unsustainable, aggressive price increases,’ [and] ‘that the payments to physicians relative to revenue ‘creates elevated risks relating to pay-to-play and anti-kickback laws.’”

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 9 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in relevant part: “…revenue growth is primarily due to increased purchases from active accounts, followed by revenue growth from new accounts.”

Then, in its November 2017 Registration Statement, AxoGen addressed product pricing, saying in relevant part: “AxoGen’s operating results will be harmed if it is unable to effectively manage and sustain its future growth or scale its operations.”

Finally, in its November 2017 Registration Statement, AxoGen also addressed its customers dependence on reimbursements, saying in pertinent part: “AxoGen’s revenues depend upon prompt and adequate reimbursement from public- and private insurers and national health systems.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on AxoGen’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$27.53
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$21.36
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

22.41%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 AXGN Lawsuit; AXGN Class Action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 11, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in AxoGen common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

AXGN Class Action AXGN Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Investigate DNKEY Lawsuit; DNKEY Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund v. Danske Bank A/S et al 1:19-cv-00235-VEC — On January 9, 2019, investors sued Danske Bank A/S (“Danske Bank” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the DNKEY class action allege that they acquired Danske Bank’s American Depository Receipts (ADRs) at artificially inflated prices between January 9, 2014 and October 23, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more on the DNKEY lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Danske Bank (OTC: DNKEY) is a “Nordic bank with strong local roots and bridges to the rest of the world.”

The Company’s history dates to the founding of Den Danske Landmandsbank in 1871. Throughout its existence, the Company strengthened its business by merging with “many local and regional banks.” In 1990, Danske Bank became the largest bank in Denmark by merging with two other “major Danish banks.”

As such, the Company says, it provides personal and commercial banking services to its customers. Additional services provided by the Company include life insurance and pension, mortgage credit, wealth management, real estate and leasing.

In all, Danske Bank now has operations in 16 countries. It also has more than 200 branches and more than 20,000 employees. Collectively they serve 2.8 million personal and business customers and more than 1,800 corporate and institutional customers.

Today, Danske Bank identifies its “core markets” as Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. However, the Company’s failure to fully disclose the extent of alleged criminal conduct at its Estonian branch is at the crux of the January 9 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Danske Bank and four of its former officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they stand accused of omitting truthful information about the nature of certain activities at Danske Bank’s Estonian branch, their knowledge of such activities, and ancillary matters from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Danske Bank’s ADRs to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of news reports, press releases, social media posts and announcements made or issued between September 5, 2017, and October 23, 2018. Collectively, these revelations chronicled the extent of alleged money laundering at Danske Bank’s Estonia branch; the investigation of said activity; how much certain Danske Bank executives knew about it; the resignation of certain Company executives; and more.

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 9 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in an Annual Report published on February 6, 2014, the Company discussed its Estonian branch, saying in relevant part: “At the beginning of 2007, Danske Bank acquired the Baltic activities of the Sampo Bank group. The activities form part of the business structure of Danske Bank Group. With the acquisition, the Group established a presence in the Baltic markets, primarily in Estonia and to a lesser extent, in Lithuania. Only the goodwill allocated to the Estonian operations remains capitalised. In 2013, goodwill in Banking Activities Baltics was reallocated to Business Banking Estonia as a result of the new organizational structure.”

Then, in another Annual Report published on February 3, 2015, the Company again discussed its Estonian branch, saying in pertinent part: “In 2014, the Group recognized a goodwill impairment corresponding to the full amount of the goodwill owing to a worsening of the long-term economic outlook in Estonia and the planned repositioning of the personal banking business in 2015.”

Finally, in another Annual Report published on February 2, 2016, the Company attributed positive financial results to its “purported ongoing operational and strategic prowess, rather than to the money laundering the whistleblower had already disclosed to Danske Bank’s senior executives during 2013.”

Specifically, one of the Individual Defendants then said in pertinent part: “In 2015, Danske Bank continued to progress and delivered strong results despite a challenging environment. The results are a testament to the strength of our diversified business model as a Nordic universal bank and reflect our firm focus on executing our strategy of becoming a more customer-centric, simple and efficient bank…”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Danske Bank’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 DNKEY Lawsuit DNKEY Class Action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 11, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Danske Bank common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

DNKEY Class Action DNKEY Lawsuit

 

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces NVFY Lawsuit; NVFY Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

January 23, 2019

Barney v. Nova Lifestyle, Inc., et al 2:18-cv-10725-AB-AFM — On December 28, 2018, investors sued Nova Lifestyle, Inc., (“Nova Lifestyle” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Nova Lifestyle stock at artificially inflated prices between December 3, 2015 and December 20, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the NVFY Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (NASDAQ: NVFY) designs and makes furniture including “sofas, dining room sets, cabinets, office furniture and related components, bedroom sets, and various accessories in matching collections.”

The Company says that its products, which are made in the United States, Europe and Asia, “include lifestyle brands such as Diamond Sofa, Nova QwiK, and Bright Swallow International.” Nova Lifestyle also says its designs target “style-conscious middle and upper middle-income consumers in the U.S., China, Europe, and elsewhere in the world.”

Nova Lifestyle is incorporated in Nevada and its headquarters is located in Commerce, California.

Summary of Facts

Nova Lifestyle and four of its current and/or former senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they stand accused of omitting truthful information about an alleged  “strategic alliance,” and the reporting of inflated sales from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Nova Lifestyle stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on December 21, 2018. That day, Andri Capital issued a report on Seeking Alpha stating that, “Nova Lifestyle’s revenues in 2016 and 2017 were overstated because the Company booked sales to a dissolved and nonexistent company.” The report also indicated that, “Nova Lifestyle’s purported strategic alliance with Shanxi Wanqing was meant to deceive investors as Shanxi Wanqing was a sham company.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the December 28 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company discussed its “strategic alliance agreement with (China) Shanxi Wanqing Senior Care Service Group.” In this context, it said in pertinent part: “Shanxi Wanqing plans to invest a total amount of 3.0 billion RMB (USD $460 Million) to build a major senior care center in Luoyang, Henan province in China, and Nova LifeStyle will operate as the lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in the complex.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on April 14, 2017, the Company stated in relevant part: “Our largest customers in 2016 were Shanxi Wanqing Senior Care Service, Group and Actona Company A/S, a global furniture distributor, which accounted for 10.8% and 9.7% of our total sales in 2016, respectively.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on March 29, 2018, Nova Lifestyle also stated in relevant part: “Our largest customers in 2017 were Merlino Lewis LLP, Shanxi Wanqing Senior Care Service, and Home Centre LLC, which accounted for 24.3%, 13.7% and 11.5% of our total sales in 2017, respectively.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Nova Lifestyle’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$0.77
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.46
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

40.23%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

NVFY Class Action NVFY Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE:. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Nova Lifestyle common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

NVFY Lawsuit NVFY Class Action

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces ALKS Lawsuit; ALKS Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Karimian v. Alkermes Public Limited Company et al 1:18-cv-07410-LDH-SMG — On December 27, 2018, investors sued Alkermes Public Limited Company (“Alkermes” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The ALKS class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Alkermes stock at artificially inflated prices between February 17, 2017 and November 1, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the ALKS Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Incorporated in Ireland, Alkermes (NASDAQ: ALKS) is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the research, development and marketing of pharmaceutical products.

According to its website, the Company “is uniquely positioned to be an engine of innovative treatments for major clinical conditions specifically focused on central nervous system (CNS) disorders.” These maladies include schizophrenia, depression, addiction and multiple sclerosis.

The Company’s U.S. facilities are located in Waltham, Massachusetts and Wilmington, Ohio.

Summary of Facts

Alkermes and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the Company’s compliance with certain FDA directives from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Alkermes stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired between April 2, 2018 and November 1, 2018. First, the Company disclosed that it had received a “Refusal to File” letter from the FDA in connection with one of its products known as ALKS 5461. Then, on October 30, 2018, the FDA released a “briefing document,” in which it indicated that it “did not agree with Alkermes’ methodologies and that Alkermes disregarded the FDA’s advice.”

Finally, Alkermes announced, “that the FDA advisory committee voted 21 to 2 against the approval of ALKS 5461.” On the same day, November 1, 2018, Xconomy reported that, “[a]t the hearing, FDA representatives said the agency specifically told Alkermes not to analyze its data through an average, which it did.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the December 27 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, Alkermes said in pertinent part: “Based on the results of FORWARD-5, the supportive evidence from FORWARD-4 and the successful phase 2 study of ALKS 5461, we recently met with the FDA’s Division of Psychiatric Products at a Type C meeting to discuss ALKS 5461. We will request a pre-NDA meeting with the FDA and plan to submit the New Drug Application (‘NDA’) for ALKS 5461 in the second half of 2017.”

Then, on January 31, 2018, the Company announced its submission of an NDA that would allow ALKS 5461 to be used in the treatment of major depressive disorder (“MDD”). In that context, Alkermes said in pertinent part: “Throughout the clinical development program, ALKS 5461 demonstrated a consistent profile o antidepressant activity, safety and tolerability in the adjunctive treatment of MDD.”

Finally, on another form filed with the SEC on July 26, 2018, the Company stated in relevant part: “Our NDA for ALKS 5461 was submitted to the FDA in January 2018 and accepted by the FDA for review in April 2018. Acceptance of the NDA for review followed FDA issuance, and then rescission, of a refusal to file letter citing insufficient evidence of effectiveness and the need for additional bridging data, both of which we expect will be addressed in the context of the FDA’s review. The NDA is based on a clinical efficacy and safety package with data from more than 30 clinical trials and more than 1,500 patients with MDD.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Alkermes Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$40.83
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$37.74
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

7.57%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 

ALKS Lawsuit ALKS Class Action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 25, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Alkermes common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.

Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

ALKS Lawsuit ALKS Class Action

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces NVDA Lawsuit; NVDA Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

January 17, 2019

Case Introduction Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds v. NVIDIA Corporation et al 1:18-cv-7669 — On December 21, 2018, investors sued NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the NVDA class action allege that they acquired NVIDIA stock at artificially inflated prices between August 10, 2017 and November 15, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the NVDA lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: NVDA) is engaged in the design, development and marketing of graphics processing units (“GPUs”) and ancillary software. In this capacity, NVIDIA provides GPUs for uses ranging from computer gaming to cryptocurrency mining.

NVIDIA’s history dates to 1993. Within two years, the Company formed its first meaningful partnership and launched its first product. However, 1999 proved to be the most significant year in the young Company’s history as it “invented” the GPU, and introduced the QUADRO GPU for professional graphics.  In that same year, it announced its initial public offering at $12 per share.

According to the December 21 complaint, there were more than 600 million NVIDIA shares, held by “at least hundreds or thousands of investors” outstanding as of November 9, 2018.

Summary of Facts

NVIDIA and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about revenue growth and NVIDIA’s ability to adapt to changes in cryptocurrency markets from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused NVIDIA stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired on August 16, 2018 and November 15, 2018. First, the Company “lowered its revenue guidance by about 2.2% for the third quarter of 2018 and reported that it no longer expects a meaningful contribution from cryptocurrency miners for the reminder of the year.” On the same day, NVIDIA also reported that, “its GPU inventory had ballooned by over 30% from the prior quarter, which investors feared could be a sign of slowing demand” for its GPUs.

Then, on November 15, 2018, the Company “significantly cuts its revenue guidance for the fiscal fourth quarter, revealing that revenue would actually decline by over 7%in the quarter – a significant departure from the 17% growth investors had been led to expect.” At the time, the Company attributed the disappointing results to “surging inventory of midrange GPUs that built up before the rapid fade of cryptocurrency mining,” which resulted in greater scrutiny and criticism from analysts.

A closer look…

As alleged in the December 21 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants attributed revenue growth in the second fiscal quarter of 2017 to several factors. These included dramatic increases in data center revenue; the use of NVIDIA’s DRIVE PX self-driving computing platform by “a growing number of car and robot-taxi companies”; and growth of gaming platforms powered by the Company’s GPUs.”

Then on a conference call with analysts and investors held on November 9, 2017, one of the Individual Defendants “downplayed the importance of cryptocurrency mining on NVIDIA’s growth,” saying in pertinent part: “when you think about crypto in the context of our company overall, the thing to remember is that we’re the largest GPU computing company in the world. And our overall GPU business is really sizable and we have multiple segments.”

Finally, at an industry conference held February 26, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants “also continued to assure investors that cryptocurrency minders would not impact sales of GPUs to gaming customers, stating in relevant part: “we do believe we can serve [cryptocurrency miners] primarily with those specialized cards and that’s going to be our goal going forward.” Within this context, the same person added: “we’re going to really try our hardest to really focus our overall GPUs for gaming for overall gamers going forward.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on NVIDIA’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

NVDA Class Action, NVDA Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 19, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in NVIDIA common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

NVDA Class Action, NVDA Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces AGN Lawsuit; AGN Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Cook v. Allergan PLC et al 1:18-cv-12089 — On December 21, 2018, investors sued Allergan plc. (“Allergan” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the AGN class action allege that they acquired Allergan stock between May 9, 2017 and December 19, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the AGN Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Allergan (NYSE: AGN) is a “bold, global pharmaceutical company.”

As such, the Company focuses on the development, manufacturing, development and marketing of “branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients around the world.” Specifically, the Company says it markets “portfolio of leading brands and best-in-class products” for use in the treatment of ailments affecting the central nervous system, eye care, cosmetic surgery and dermatology, gastroenterology, women’s health, urology and anti-infective therapeutic categories.

In all, Allergan says it has 17,000 employees and a presence in approximately 100 countries.

According to the December 21 complaint, more than 345 million shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange.

Summary of Facts

Allergan and three of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s products during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of failing to disclose truthful information about the status of Allergan’s textured breast implants and tissue expanders during quarterly earnings calls. By knowingly or deliberately doing so, they allegedly caused Allergan stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on December 19, 2018, when the Company announced that it had halted the sale of its textured breast implants and tissue expanders and “was withdrawing all remaining supplies from European markets.”

According to the December 21 complaint, the withdrawal “followed a compulsory recall request from the Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament (“ANSM”), the French regulatory authority.”  The suspension of sales “stemmed directly from the expiration of the Company’s CE Mark for these products.”

A closer look…

As also alleged in the December 21 complaint, Allergan and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, during a conference call held at the beginning of the Class Period to discuss the Company’s quarterly earnings, one of the Individual Defendants bragged about “the Company’s progress in securing ‘major pharma and device approvals.’” The same person also bragged that Allergan had “additional indications for [its] breast implants and fillers.”

Then, during another earnings call held on February 6, 2018, a different Individual Defendant said in relevant part: “In Plastics and Regenerative Medicine, fourth quarter U.S. sales were exceptionally strong, up 15% on a pro forma basis versus last year. Growth in this segment has been driven primarily by ALLODERM, our tissue matrix for breast reconstruction, which is exceeding expectations; and market share gains for our 2 new INSPIRA breast implants.”

Finally, on another earnings call held on July 26, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants said in relevant part: “In Plastics and Regenerative Medicine, ALLODERM, our tissue matrix for breast reconstruction, continues to exceed expectations. ALLODERM sales were up 26%. This product is becoming part of the standard care in reconstructive surgeries.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Allergan’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$146.76
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$136.56
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6.95%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

AGN Class Action AGN Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 19, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Allergan common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

AGN Lawsuit AGN Class Action

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

TS Class Action; Levi & Korsinsky Announce TS Lawsuit, Tenaris Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

January 8, 2019

Atanasio v. Tenaris S.A. et al 1:18-cv-07059 — On December 12, 2018, investors sued Tenaris S.A. (“Tenaris” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The TS class action alleges that the plaintiffs acquired Tenaris stock at artificially inflated prices between May 1, 2014 and November 27, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the Tenaris Lawsuit (TS Lawsuit), please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Tenaris (NYSE: TS) is “a leading supplier of tubes and related services for the world’s energy industry and certain other industrial applications.”

The Company says its customers are some  “of the world’s leading oil and gas companies as well as engineering companies engaged in constructing oil and gas gathering, transportation and processing facilities.” Its core products include casing, tubing, line pipe, and mechanical and structural pipes.

In all, Tenaris has manufacturing facilities in 16 countries and research and development facilities on four continents. It also has service and distribution centers is more than 25 countries.

The Company’s history dates to 1948, when Siderca was established in Argentina. Tenaris expanded its Argentine operations in the 1980s and gradually grew into a global business “through a series of strategic investments.”

According to the December 12 complaint, Tenaris has a “significant investment in Ternium S.A.” Specifically, the Company held more than 11% of Ternium’s share capital (including treasury shares) as of December 31, 2017.

As also set forth in the December 12 complaint, the 2005 consolidation of Siderar of Argentina, Sidor of Venezuela and Hylsa of Mexico resulted in the creation of Ternium. However, Venezuela ordered the transformation of Sidor, a Venezuelan steel company, into a state-owned enterprise in 2008.

Finally, on May 7 2009, Ternium sold its majority stake (59.7%) in Sidor to Corporación Venezolana de Guayana, or CVG, “a Venezuelan state-owned entity.” Although Ternium accepted $1.97 billion USD for the sale of its interest, it took several years to get the money.

Summary of Facts

Tenaris and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about a certain executive’s conduct and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Tenaris stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came in a report published by Bloomberg on November 27, 2018. In it, Bloomberg revealed that Tenaris Chairman and CEO Paolo Rocca (one of the Individual Defendants named in the December 12 complaint) “was indicted for his role in a graft scheme.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the December 12 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated that it was: “committed to conducting business in a legal and ethical manner in compliance with local and international statutory requirements and standards.”

On another form filed with the SEC on June 1, 2015, the Company referred to its Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct, stating in pertinent part:

“In addition to the general code of conduct incorporating guidelines and standards of integrity and transparency applicable to all of our directors, officers and employees, we have adopted a code of ethics for financial officers which applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions and is intended to supplement the Company’s Code of Conduct.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Tenaris’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$27.00
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$24.36
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

9.77%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 TS Lawsuit TS Class Action Tenaris Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 11, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Tenaris common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

TS Lawsuit TS Class Action Tenaris Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

TDOC Class Action; Levi & Korsinsky Announces TDOC Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-11603-GHW — On December 12, 2018, investors sued Teladoc Health, Inc., (“Teladoc” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The TDOC class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Teladoc stock at artificially inflated prices between March 3, 2016 and December 5, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the TDOC lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Founded in 2002, Teladoc (NYSE: TDOC) is based in Purchase, New York and provides global telehealth services.

Specifically, the Company provides comprehensive services and solutions addressing more than 400 medical subspecialties ranging from the flu to cancer and congestive heart failure. These services are provided through mobile devices, the Internet, video and phone.

According to its website, the Company has offices throughout the world and serves “millions of people” in 125 countries. To do so, Teladoc says it provides access to care in more than 20 languages.

Prior to adopting its current moniker in August 2018, the Company was known as Teladoc, Inc.

Summary of Facts

Teladoc and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operational and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about a top executive’s conduct, and the enforcement of certain Company policies from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Teladoc stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in an article published by the Southern Investigative Research Foundation (“SIRF”) on December 5, 2018. In it, SIRF reported that Teladoc’s CFO, who is also named as an Individual Defendant in the December 12 complaint, had been involved in “an affair… with an employee many levels below him on the company’s organizational chart.”

The article also asserted that, “during their relationship [the employee] received a series of promotions over colleagues with either more industry experience or better credentials that stunned her former colleagues.” Finally, the article included allegations that the participants in the affair “liked to trade Teladoc Health’s stock together,” with the Individual Defendant advising his lover “when he thought there were good opportunities to sell some shares.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the December 12 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “We depend on our senior management team, and the loss of one or more of our executive officers or key employees, or an inability to attract and retain highly skilled employees could adversely affect our business.”

On another form filed with the SEC on April 15, 2016, the Company also said in pertinent part: “Teladoc is committed to the highest standards of integrity and ethics in the way it conducts business.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on April 6, 2017, the Company stated in pertinent part: “[t]he Board has also adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to all directors, officers and employees. The purpose of this code is to promote honest and ethical conduct for conducting the business of the Company consistent with the highest standards of business ethics.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Teladoc’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$59.81
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$55.81
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6.69%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 TDOC Class Action TDOC Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 11, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Teladoc common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

TDOC Lawsuit TDOC CLass Action

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce A HLTH Lawsuit; HLTH Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

January 2, 2019

Van ‘t Hoofd v. Nobilis Health Corp. et al 4:18-cv-04727 — On December 14, 2018, investors sued Nobilis Health Corp. (“Nobilis” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Plaintiffs in the HLTH class action allege that they acquired Nobilis stock at artificially inflated prices between May 8, 2018 and November 15, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the HLTH Lawsuit, contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: HLTH) describes itself as a “recognized healthcare leader and marketing innovator.”

As such, Nobilis says it “develops, owns, and partners with ambulatory surgery centers, hospitals, and physician practices to provide high-yield procedures in the rapidly expanding, minimally invasive, elective surgery market.”

In all, the Company has more than 30 locations across Texas and Arizona. In addition to operating its own facilities, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, and multi-specialty clinics in the desert southwest, Nobilis has also teamed up with 30 facilities in other parts of the country.

By marketing “nine independent brands,” Nobilis says it “deploys a unique patient acquisition strategy driven by proprietary, direct-to-consumer marketing technology, focusing on a specified set of procedures that are performed at its facilities by local physicians.”

Summary of Facts

The Company and three of its current and/or former senior officers (the “individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about its revenue and accounts receivable from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Nobilis stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events between August 2, 2018 and November 15, 2018. On August 2, the Company reported, “that its revenue for the second quarter of 208 was reduced due, in part, to a $2.4 million adjustment to its accounts receivable.”

Then, on November 9, Nobilis reported that it is “re-evaluating the Net Realizable Value on its Accounts Receivable and intends to make a significant adjustment to the carrying value of accounts receivable, primarily on out of network claims greater than 365 days old.” The Company also “filed for additional time to file its 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2018, while the Company and the auditor completed their review of the financial statements.”

Six days later, Nobilis   announced that the NYSE had notified it that the Company “is not in compliance with the NYSE’s continued listing requirements due to its failure to timely file its 10-Q.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the December 14 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company reported revenue of $64.5 million and accounts receivable was $133.4 million.” In the same press release, the Company also “provided full year 2018 guidance with revenue in the range of $345.0 million to $355.0 million and adjusted EBITDA in the range of $57.0 million to $62.0 million.”

Then, in a press release issued on August 2, 2018, the Company reported, “that a new accounting standard regarding accounts receivable had impacted revenue.” In the same press release, Nobilis revised its full year 2018 guidance with revenue in the range of $315.0 million to $330.0 million and adjusted EBITDA in the range of $56.0 million to $59.0 million.”

During a conference call also held on August 2, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants explained that, “due to the new accounting standard, all accounts receivable adjustments are recorded as reductions in revenue, rather than as bad debt expense as under the previous standard.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Nobilis’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$0.55
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.48
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

12.73%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 HLTH Class Action, HLTH Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 12, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Nobilis common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

HLTH Class Action, HLTH Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.

 


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces XPO Lawsuit; XPO Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc., et al 3:18-cv-02062-VLB — On December 14, 2018, investors sued XPO Logistics, Inc. (“XPO” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs in the XPO class action allege that they acquired XPO stock at artificially inflated prices between February 26, 2014 and December 12, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the XPO lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Formerly known as Express-1 Expedited Solutions, Inc., XPO (NYSE: XPO) is a self-described “top ten global logistics company.”

As such, it provides transportation and logistics services to its customers throughout North America, Europe, the United Kingdom and Asia. In all, the Company claims it has operations in 32 countries and more than 1,500 locations.

According to its website, XPO has approximately 98,000 employees in its Transportation and Logistics divisions. Collectively, they cater to more than 50,000 customers in numerous industries, including but not limited to retail, e-commerce, food and beverage, manufacturing and technology and telecommunications.

Summary of Facts

The Company and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about XPO’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are now accused of omitting truthful information about the efficacy of its mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) strategy and the use of certain accounting practices from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused XPO stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on December 12, 2018, when Spruce Point Management reported that a “forensic investigation into XPO” had uncovered “financial irregularities that conveniently cover [the Company’s] growing financial strain and inability to complete additional acquisitions despite repeated promises.” Among other things, the Spruce Point Management report also alleged that its investigation revealed “concrete evidence to suggest dubious tax accounting, under-reporting of bad debts, phantom income through unaccountable M&A earn-out liabilities, and aggressive amortization assumptions: all designed to portray glowing ‘Non-GAAP’ results.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the December 14 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, XPO detailed the alleged benefits of its M&A strategy, saying in relevant part: “We take a disciplined approach to acquisitions: we look for companies that are highly scalable and a good strategic fit with our core competencies.”

In the same context, the Company also said in pertinent part: “When we acquire a company, we seek to integrate it with our operations by moving the acquired operations onto our technology platform that connects our broader organization. We gain more carriers, customers, lane histories and pricing histories with each acquisition, and some acquisitions add complementary services.”

Finally, another form filed with the SEC on February 29, 2016 included certifications signed by the Individual Defendants in accordance with federal law. In them, the Individual Defendants swore that the information on the form fairly represented, in all relevant aspects, “the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on XPO’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$60.27
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$44.50
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

26.17%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

XPO Class Action, XPO Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 12, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in XPO common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

 

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

XPO Class Action, XPO Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces BLUE Lawsuit; BLUE Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Lind v. bluebird bio, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-12556 — On December 12, 2018, investors sued bluebird bio, Inc. (“bluebird” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired bluebird stock at artificially inflated prices between December 11, 2017 and November 29, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the BLUE lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, bluebird (NASDAQ: BLUE) is a clinical-stage company “committed to developing potentially transformative gene therapies for severe genetic diseases and T cell-based immunotherapies.”

As such, its primary goal is “is to develop and bring to market the most advanced products based on the transformative potential of gene therapy to provide patients hope for a better life in the face of limited or no long-term safe and effective treatment options.”

The December 12 complaint also details the steps bluebird is taking to meet its objective. Specifically, the Company is conducting five clinical studies of LentiGlobin, its lead product candidate for the treatment of sickle cell disease (“SCD”) in the U.S. and abroad.

The Company’s claims about the efficacy of LentiGlobin are at the crux of the December 12 complaint.

Summary of Facts

The Company and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about bluebird’s business practices, occupational and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the efficacy of LentiGlobin from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused bluebird stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a December 3, 2018 press release that the Company actually issued on December 1, 2018. In it, the Company informed investors that it had announced “new long-term data” from one completed and one ongoing study involving LentiGlobin at an American Society of Hematology (“ASH”) meeting.

Then, on December 3, 2018, Seeking Alpha published an article reporting that the results announced by bluebird “were lower than initial data reported a year ago indicating a lower rate of production of anti-sickling hemoglobin.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the December 12 complaint, bluebird and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued by bluebird at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company’s chief medical officer said in relevant part: “All three patients with severe SCD in the HGB-205 study showed a steady increase in HbAT87Q production in the first six months following LentiGlobin therapy, with the longest-treated patient showing stable hemoglobin levels over two and a half years.”

Then on a form filed with the SEC on February 21, 2018, the Company provided “Updated Clinical Data for the LentiGlobin product candidate in subjects with TDT or severe SCD.” In this context bluebird stated in relevant part: “It should be noted that these data presented above are current as of the data cut-off date, are preliminary in nature and our Northstar Study is not complete. There is limited data concerning long-term safety and efficacy following treatment with our LentiGlobin product candidate.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on May 2, 2018, the Company stated in relevant part: “For efficacy, we believe that the Northstar Study and supportive ongoing HGB-205 study, together with the data available from our ongoing Northstar-2 Study and our long-term follow-up study LTF-303, could support the filing of a marketing authorization application in the European Union.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on bluebird’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$122.89
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$116.50
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

5.20%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

BLUE Class Action, BLUE Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in bluebird common stock using court-approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

BLUE Class Action, BLUE Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces CMCM Class Action; CMCM Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

December 14, 2018

Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-11184-JMF — On November 30, 2018, investors sued Cheetah Mobile, Inc., (“Cheetah” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action claim that they acquired the Company’s American Depository Receipts (ADRs) at artificially inflated prices between April 26, 2017 and November 27, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of Cheetah’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the CMCM lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Cheetah (NYSE: CMCM) is a Chinese business incorporated in 2009 and known as Kingsoft Internet Holdings Limited until it adopted its current moniker in 2014.

As a “mobile Internet company,” Cheetah’s goal is to “provide leading apps for mobile users worldwide and connect users with personalized content powered by artificial intelligence.” According to its website, Cheetah has “attracted approximately 600 million global MAUs [monthly average users] in more than 200 countries and regions, of which approximately 77% are located in Europe and the U.S.”

Cheetah’s products include utility applications, such as Clean Master, Security Master, CM Launcher, Duba Anti-Virus and Cheetah Keyboard. The Company also provides social and gaming apps, such as LiveMe and popular casual games such as Piano Tiles 2, Rolling Sky and Arrow.io.

Summary of Facts

Cheetah and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, and its operational and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of failing to disclose truthful information about its acquisition and use of certain data in SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Cheetah stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a Buzz Feed News article published on November 26, 2018. According to the November 30 complaint, the article reported that the Company’s apps, “tracked when users downloaded new apps and used this data to inappropriately claim credit for having caused the download.” Buzz Feed also reported that, “two of Cheetah’s apps were removed from the Google Play store after publication of the article.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 30 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period. Some examples follow.

On a form filed with the SEC on April 26, 2017, Cheetah stated in relevant part: “We generate online marketing revenues primarily by providing mobile advertising services to advertisers worldwide, as well as referring user traffic and selling advertisements on our mobile and PC platforms.”

The same form included a certification signed by one the Individual Defendants in accordance with federal law. By signing it, the Individual Defendant attested to, “the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.”

On another form filed with the SEC on April 24, 2018, the Company referred to its “Ability to provide targeted advertising,” and stated in relevant part: We believe that data analytics is a key factor affecting our online marketing revenues. Data analytics enable us to map our users’ interest and distribute targeted advertising to our users. Our ability to effectively conduct user profiling and provide targeted advertising affects advertising engagement and conversion, which affects our online marketing revenues.”

What the Company did not reveal, however was that its apps had, “undisclosed imbedded features which tracked when users downloaded new apps,” that it misused this data, and that the discovery of this misuse “would foreseeably subject the Company’s apps to removal from the Google Play store.” The Company also failed to disclose that revenue generated during the Class Period was “unsustainable” because it was partially derived from improper conduct.

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Cheetah’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$8.80
Closing stock the trading day after disclosures:

 

$5.48
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

37.72%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

CMCM Class Action CMCM Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 29, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Cheetah common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

CMCM Class Action CMCM Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.

 


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces TX Class Action; TX Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Ulbricht v. Ternium S.A. et al 1:18-cv-06801-PKC-RLM — On November 29, 2018, investors sued Ternium S.A. (“Ternium” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The TX class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Ternium securities at artificially inflated prices between May 1, 2014 and November 27, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the TX lawsuit, please contact us today.

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Working through its subsidiaries, Ternium (NYSE: TX) makes and processes various steel products in Mexico, the United States, and throughout Central and South America.

Ternium now employs more than 21,000 people. Its steel products include but are not limited to slabs, billets and round bars, hot-rolled coils and sheets, bars and stirrups, wire rods, cold-rolled coils and sheets, tin plates, hot dipped galvanized and electrogalvanized sheets and pre-painted sheets.

Founded in 1961, the Company is incorporated and based in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.

Summary of Facts

Ternium and four of its current and former officers and/or directors  (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operational and financial results during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain conduct and its impact on the Company from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Ternium securities to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a Bloomberg article published November 27, 2018. In it Bloomberg reported that the Chairman of Ternium’s Board of Directors, who is also chairman and CEO of Tenaris, S.A., had been “indicted for his role in a graft scheme.”

The article also went into greater detail, reporting: “The judge charged [Paolo] Rocca after the Argentine billionaire testified that one of his company’s executives paid an undisclosed amount of cash to government officials in monthly installments from 2009 to 2012. The officials were allegedly working for then-President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s administration to speed up a compensation payment from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez for the nationalization of Sidor, a unit that had been seized by Venezuela.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 29 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC on April 30, 2014, the Company said in relevant part: “Ternium’s cash flows for 2011 and 2012 include non-recurring payments received in connection with the transfer of our interest in Sidor to Venezuela.”

On the same form, Ternium referred to its Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct, saying in relevant part: “We have adopted a code of ethics that applies specifically to our principal executive officers and principal financial and accounting officer and controller, as well as persons performing similar functions. We have also adopted a code of conduct that applies to all company employees, including contractors, subcontractors and suppliers.”

Another form filed with the SEC on June 1, 2015, included certifications signed by two of the Individual Defendants pursuant to federal law. By signing them, the Individual Defendants attested to “the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Ternium’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$29.44
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$28.02
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

4.82%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

TX Class Action TX Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 28, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Ternium securities using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

TX Class Action TX Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announced RYAAY Lawsuit; RYAAY Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

December 12, 2018

City of Birmingham Firemen’s and Policemen’s Supplemental Pension System v. Ryanair Holdings, plc. et al 1:18-cv-10330-JPO — On November 6, 2018, investors sued Ryanair Holdings, plc. (“Ryanair” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the RYAAY class action allege that they acquired Ryanair American Depositary Shares (ADS) at artificially inflated prices between May 30, 2017, and September 28, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more on the RYAAY lawsuit, please contact us today.

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Ryanair (NASDAQ: RYAAY) is a commercial airline based in Dublin, Ireland.

According to its website, the Company’s history dates to 1985-1986, when it launched its “first route in July with daily flights on a 15-seater Bandeirante aircraft, operating daily from Waterford in the southeast of Ireland to London Gatwick.”

Today, the Company bills itself as, “Europe’s first and largest low fares airline,” and “Europe’s Number 1 airline.” Specifically, it claims that it accommodates more than 130 million passengers per year on “more than 2,000 daily flights from 86 bases, connecting 215 destinations in 37 countries on a fleet of 430 Boeing 737 aircraft.”       Finally, the Company claims that it employs “a team of more than 14,500 highly skilled aviation professionals.”

Summary of Facts

Ryanair and its CEO now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about difficult labor relations, and the potential impact on Ryanair’s operations and financial results, from SEC filings and related material. By recklessly or knowingly doing so, they allegedly caused Ryanair ADS to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events beginning on September 14, 2017. That’s when the public learned that Ryanair “had lost a key ruling in the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) that cast doubt on the legality of the Company’s use of Irish employment contracts to evade local labor laws throughout Europe.”

The next day, the Company announced the short-term cancellation of daily flights affecting more than 300,000 customers due to “pilot scheduling issues.” However, reports quickly surfaced indicating that the disruption was really due to “widespread defections by disgruntled employees.”

Although the Company vowed to address employee concerns, news about ongoing employee unrest again surfaced in the summer of 2018. On July 23, 2018, the Company “disclosed a 20% decrease in quarterly profits, due in part to a 34% increase in staff costs.”

Finally, on October 1, 2018, Ryanair announced that it would be unable to meet its annual profit guidance “due to the lost fares and ballooning costs related to the strikes and flight cancellations.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 6 complaint, Ryanair and its CEO repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “In April we negotiated new pay and condition agreements with 10 of our pilot and cabin crew bases which means that all of our 86 bases now enjoy 5 year agreements, which guarantee them industry leading rosters, and pay increases each year.”

On a conference call with analysts and investors also held on May 30, 2017, Ryanair’s CEO said in relevant part: “We reject some of the idiotic criticism that came out of some Scandinavian pension forums recently that somehow we don’t deal with our employees, our employees are not covered by collective bargaining when they are. And we do not see unionization being an issue for the foreseeable future.”

Then on a form filed with the SEC on July 25, 2017, the Company stated in pertinent part: “Following negotiations through this ERC system, pilots of all of Ryanair’s 86 bases are covered by four, five or six year collective agreements on pay, allowances and rosters which fall due for negotiation at various dates between 2018 and 2023. Cabin crew at all of Ryanair’s bases are also party to long term collective agreements on pay, allowances and rosters, which expire in March 2021.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Ryanair’s ADS Price and Market Capitalization

Closing ADS price prior to disclosures:

 

$96.04
Closing ADS price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$80.93
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

15.73%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

RYAAY Lawsuit, RYAAY Class Action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 7, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Ryanair ADS using court-approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

RYAAY CLass Action, RYAAY Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.

 


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces ALGN Class Action; ALGN Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Lu v. Align Technology, Inc., et al 5:18-cv-06720-LHK–On November 5, 2018, investors sued Align Technology, Inc., (“Align” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the ALGN class action allege that they acquired Align stock at artificially inflated prices between July 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the ALGN Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Align (NYSE: ALGN) is a global medical device company that provides products and services which, “help dental professionals achieve the clinical results they expect and deliver effective, cutting-edge dental options to their patients.”

The Company says it introduced its Invisalign teeth straightening system in 1999, and that it made more than 1 million of the unique clear aligners within two years. Today, the Company also claims, it has helped treat more than 5 million patients with the Invisalign system – which is now available to adult and teenage patients in more than 90 countries globally.

Summary of Facts

Align and three of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about discounts used to promote Invisalign from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused the price of Align stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out when the Company announced its third quarter 2018 financial results on October 24, 2018. Align then revealed that its Invisalign Average Selling Price dropped from $1,315 to $1,230.

On the same day, the Company announced that its Chief Marketing Officer (an Individual Defendant) would “reduce his responsibilities and transition to a part-time position.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 5, complaint, Align and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release announcing the Company’s financial results for the second quarter of 2018, which was issued at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Year-over-year revenue growth of 37.5% was driven by continued momentum from Invisalign doctors and increased adoption of Invisalign treatment for teenage patients, which was 42.1%.”

In the same press release, the same Individual Defendant also stated in pertinent part: “Q2 Invisalign volume growth of 30.5% year-over-year reflects increased utilization and expansion of our customer base, which was over 50,000 for the first time and included more than 5,000 new Invisalign-trained doctors.”

Then, on August 2, 2018, the Company filed a quarterly report with the SEC in which it affirmed the financial results announced in the press release.

What the Company did not disclose, however, was that it “would offer higher discounts to promote Invisalign,” and that “the promotions would materially impact revenue.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Align’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$290.83
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$232.07
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

20.20%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 ALGN Lawsuit ALGN Class Action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 4, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Align common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

ALGN Lawsuit ALGN Class Action

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces APOG Lawsuit; APOG Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

On November 5, 2018, investors sued Apogee Enterprises, Inc., (“Apogee” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Minnesota. The APOG class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Apogee stock at artificially inflated prices between June 28, 2018 and September 17, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the APOG Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Apogee (NASDAQ: APOG) is a self-described “industry leader in architectural products and services.” As such, it says it derives the bulk of its revenue through its architectural glass, metal and installation businesses.

The Company’s history dates to 1949. Eventually, the business that began with just one auto glass shop expanded to provide architectural glass installation and window framing. In 1971, Apogee went public, offering 250,000 shares.

Today, Apogee has eight operating companies, 12 manufacturing and fabrication facilities in the United States, and 13 overseas.

Summary of Facts

Apogee and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, operations and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about its labor force and ability to hire new employees from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Apogee stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a press release issued by the Company on September 18, 2018. In it the Company revealed the operating income for its glass segment was $1.7 million, compared to $10.3 million in the “previous year’s comparable quarter.” The Company blamed the poor performance on “significantly increased labor costs, lower productivity, and higher cost of quality, as the segment was challenged to efficiently ramp-up production to meet the higher than expected, short lead-time customer demand.” It also reduced its financial guidance.

Then on an ensuing conference call to discuss its financial and operating results for the second fiscal quarter of 2018, one of the Individual Defendants admitted “Apogee was never ready to ramp-up production and meet the previously announced growth and margins,” that Defendants “were aware of labor market trends,” and that they did nothing to address them.

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 5 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release regarding the Company’s financial and operating results for the first fiscal quarter of 20, which was issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in relevant part: “We also continued to make progress positioning the company for long-term, stable earnings and cash flow growth, regardless of the economic cycle.”

In the same press release, the Company also said in pertinent part: “On this strong foundation, we continued making investments and process improvements to increase efficiencies in project selection, manufacturing and delivery to raise long-term operating margins and drive earnings.”

Then, during an ensuing conference call to discuss the Company’s fiscal first quarter 2018 results, one of the Individual Defendants stated in pertinent part: “…order activity for Architectural Glass grew substantially during the quarter and we continue to expect higher revenues sequentially in Q2 and year-over-year revenue in operating income growth for the remainder of the year.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Apogee’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$48.22
Closing stock price two trading days after disclosures:

 

$41.76
Two day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

13.40%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

APOG Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 4, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Apogee common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

APOG Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us today!


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces NKTR Class Action; NKTR Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

November 27, 2018

Mulquin v. Nektar Therapeutics, et al. 4:18-cv-06607-HSG — On October 30, 2018, investors sued Nektar Therapeutics (“Nektar” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. The NKTR class action alleges that the plaintiffs acquired Nektar stock at artificially inflated prices between November 11, 2017 and October 2, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the NKTR Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Nektar (NASDAQ: NKTR) is a self-described research-based development stage biopharmaceutical company that “discovers and develops innovative medicines in areas of high unmet medical need.”

The Company says it leverages its “proprietary and proven chemistry platform in the discovery and design” of its new drug candidates. It also says that its R&D pipeline of new investigational drugs includes treatments for cancer, auto-immune disease and chronic pain.

Nektar’s claims about its lead immune-oncology (“I-0”) product candidate, NKTTR-214, are at the crux of the October 30 complaint.

Summary of Facts

The Company and two of its officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about Nektar’s business, operational and compliance practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain studies, and the safety and efficacy of its lead I-O product candidate from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Nektar stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a report published by Plainview LLC (“Plainview”) on October 1, 2018. In it, Plainview concluded that, “the core concept of Nektar’s plan to develop NKTR-214 into ‘a new universal cancer treatment’ ‘has never worked in practice,’ and further asserted that Nektar’s decision to only disclose certain trial results represented ‘an unprecedented level of opacity.’”

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 30 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company said in relevant part: “Nektar and Bristol-Myers Squibb entered into a clinical collaboration in September of 2016 to evaluate the potential for the combination of Opdivo and NKTR-214 to show improved and sustained efficacy and tolerability above the current standard of care.”

Then, in a May 10, 2018 press release, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Nektar begins 2018 in a very strong position with a major collaboration with Bristol-Myers Squibb for NKTR-214 and key advancements in our immuno-oncology and immunology pipeline.”

Finally, in another press release issued on August 8, 2018, the same Individual Defendant also stated in pertinent part: “[o]ver the past few months, we have reported significant progress across all areas of our pipeline with notable milestones for immuno-oncology, immunology and pain programs.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Nektar’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$60.96
Closing stock price tw0 trading days after disclosures:

 

$55.33
Tow-day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

9.24%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 NKTR Class Action, NKTR Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 31, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Nektar common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

NKTR Class Action, NKTR Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces IGC Class Action; IGC Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al 8:18-cv-03396-PWG — On November 2, 2018, investors sued India Globalization Capital, Inc., (“IGC” or the “Company) in United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The federal securities class action alleges that the plaintiffs acquired IGC stock at artificially inflated prices between September 26, 2018 and October 29, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the IGC Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (NYSE American: IGC) engages in two different types of businesses.

The first is a “Legacy Infrastructure” business mostly conducted through IGC’s subsidiary, TBL, which includes heavy equipment rental, real estate management and trading in certain commodities.

The second is IGCA Pharma. The Company describes this business as a “leading cannabis-based pharmaceutical company with a pipeline of products designed to improve the lives of patients battling Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, chronic pain, PTSD and eating disorders.”

IGC is incorporated and based in Maryland. According to the November 2 complaint, the Company had more than 31 million shares issued and outstanding as of June 15, 2018.

Summary of Facts

IGC and three of its officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain “ventures and promotions,” from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused IGC stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth began to emerge when Citron Research and Marketwatch publicly questioned IGC’s operations following the “astronomic rise of the Company’s stock price.”

Then, on October 29, 2018, when NYSE American announced that, “trading in the Company’s stock would be immediately suspended and delisted from the Exchange” for various reasons.

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 2 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on September 25, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing its plans to enter a partnership and launch a “hemp/CBD-infused energy drink” called Nitro-G. In it, IGC stated in relevant part: “IGC will pay 797,000 shares of restricted, unregistered, common stock, for a 10-year agreement, with an option for multiple 5-year extensions, for the rights to market the products in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and South America, and exclusive global rights to all developed CBD-infused products.”

In the same press release, the Company also said in pertinent part: “IGC plans to create a branded, hemp/CBD-infused version of the formulation that addresses market demand for energy drinks with the inclusion of healthy properties derived from hemp including CBD.”

Finally, in the same press release, the Company concluded: “This transaction is particularly timely given the language of the 2018 Farm Bill that currently addresses potentially legalizing, on a federal level, industrial hemp and products derived from it, including hemp oil that contains CBD.”

The November 2 complaint alleges that IGC’s stock “rocketed 458%” within the week following the announcement. That week, IGC also “conducted an at-the-market stock offering announced on September 22, 2018, raising $30 million in capital.”

What the Company never disclosed, however, was that it was “engaged in ventures or promotions which it had not developed to commercial stage,” and that its management had “engaged in operations contrary to public interest.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on IGC’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 IGC Lawsuit, IGC Class Action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 2, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in IGC common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

IGC Lawsuit, IGC Class Action

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

SONS Class Action (RBBN Class Action Lawsuit) Filed; SONS Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Miller v. Sonus Networks, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-12344 — On November 8, 2018, investors sued Sonus Networks, Inc., (“Sonus” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. The SONS class action (RBBN Class Action) alleges that plaintiffs acquired Sonus stock at artificially inflated prices between January 8, 2015, and March 24, 2015 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the SONS Lawsuit (RBBN Lawsuit), please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Now known as Ribbon Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: RBBN), Sonus (formerly NASDAQ: SONS), has been in business since 1997 and engages in the provision of “communications solutions.”

The technology the Company offers allows service providers and other establishments to safeguard their “communications infrastructures” through the use of Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”), video, instant messaging and online collaboration.

According to the November 8 complaint, Sonus “began shifting its product line” as “IP-to-IP communications have become more common.” Specifically, it transitioned to the provision of “cloud-based solutions to link and secure multivendor, multiprotocol communications systems and applications across their customers’ networks of smartphones and tablets, for all of their employees and all of their offices.” Within this context, it focused on the production of “session border controllers,” or “SBCs.” SBCs are important because they “help secure connections as private communications connect with the public internet [sic].”

As technology and resulting demands for security have grown and changed, Sonus has also transitioned to the production of “diameter signaling controllers,” or “DSCs.” These products serve a crucial purpose by interconnecting separate elements and creating “a central point of control” within 4G LTE networks.

A “global direct sales force” sells the Company’s products. It is supplemented by “sales support from regional channel partners” worldwide.

Summary of Facts

Sonus and three of its former officers and/or senior executives (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain revenue from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly and deliberately doing so, they allegedly caused Sonus stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth began to surface when the Company issued a press release before the market opened on March 24, 2015. In it, Sonus revealed that it had missed its first quarter, 2015 revenue projection by more than $20 million. According to the November 8 complaint, the Company’s only explanation at the time was that it, “no longer expects to receive certain orders this quarter that had been expected to be received at the back end of the first quarter.”

Immediately following the revelation, one industry analyst reduced the Company’s stock rating. The next day, another analyst blasted Sonus for its lack of honesty and management’s failure to provide any explanation for the reduced guidance.

Finally, on August 7, 2018, the SEC issued a press release and an Order. In it, the SEC announced that it had charged Ribbon Communications, Inc., and two of the Individual Defendants with making “material misstatements” about Sonus’s “revenue statements and guidance for Q1 2015” on January 8, 2015, and February 18, 2015. In settling the charges, the Company and Individual Defendants “agreed to pay civil penalties totaling $1.97 million.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 8 complaint, Sonus and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “We remain comfortable with consensus analyst revenue… estimates for the first quarter of 2015 of approximately $74 million.”

Then, during an earnings call held on February 18, 2015, the same Individual Defendant also said in relevant part: “Now, looking at Q1, we expect revenue to be approximately $74 million.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Sonus’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$13.16
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$8.70
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

33.89%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 8, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Sonus common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

 

SONS Lawsuit SONS Class Action RBBN Lawsuit RBBN Class Action

 

 

 

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announced FIT Class Action; FIT Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

November 26, 2018

Lopes v. Fitbit, Inc., et al 3:18-cv-06665-JST — On November 1, 2018, investors sued Fitbit, Inc., (“Fitbit” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the FIT class action allege that they acquired Fitbit stock at artificially inflated prices between August 2, 2016 and January 30, 2017 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the FIT Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Fitbit (NYSE: FIT) is a business “dedicated to health and fitness” that is “building products that help transform people’s lives.”

The Company’s history dates to 2007, when its founders “realized that sensors and wireless technology had advanced to a point where they could bring amazing experiences to fitness and health.” Today its mission is to empower people to live healthier and more active lives.

Its products purportedly include wearable devices such as health and fitness trackers and smartwatches that allow users to access relevant data.

Fitbit is incorporated in Delaware and its principal executive offices are located in San Francisco. It also has U.S. offices in Boston, San Diego, and Washington State; and international offices in Dublin, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Seoul, Bucharest, Minsk, New Delhi, Tokyo, Singapore, Shenzhen and Waterloo (Canada).

As of October 31, 2016, Fitbit had more than 170 million shares of common stock outstanding.

Summary of Facts

Fitbit and two of its officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about its competition and demand for its products from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Fitbit stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a press release issued by the Company on January 30, 2017. In it, the Company disclosed that it expected its revenue for the fourth quarter of 2016 to fall well below previous estimates. The Company also “disclosed expected annual revenue growth of 17%, rather than the previously-announced forecast of 25% to 26%.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 1 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants said in relevant part: “Based on the progress of our business, against a backdrop of a growing worldwide opportunity for our products, we remain confident in our guidance for the year.”

On a conference call also held that day, the same Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “We have additional new products to come this year. The positive response we have received from retailers, who have had had the chance to preview these new products under NDA in recent weeks, strengthens our confidence in our guidance for the year.”

Then, on October 6, 2016, the same Individual Defendant did a television interview in which he “made a variety of positive statements about Fitbit’s business, operations and prospects.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Fitbit’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$7.21
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$6.06
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

15.95%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 FIT Class Action FIT Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 31, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Fitbit common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

FIT Class Action FIT Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces HON Class Action; HON Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Kanefsky v. Honeywell International, Inc., et al 2:18-cv-15536-WJM-MF — On October 31, 2018, investors sued Honeywell International, Inc., (“Honeywell” or the “Company”) In United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The HON class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Honeywell stock at artificially inflated prices between February 9, 2018 and October 19, 2018 (the “Class Period). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the HON lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

As a “multi-national conglomerate,” Honeywell (NYSE: HON) engages in the manufacturing of numerous commercial and consumer products, engineering services and aerospace systems.

Its history dates to 1885, when inventor Albert Butz patented the “furnace regulator and alarm.” Butz established the Butz Thermo-Electric Regulator Co., Minneapolis, in April 1886. That business eventually became the Minneapolis Heat Regulator Company, which in turn merged with Honeywell Heating Specialty Co., in 1927.

Today, Honeywell is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey, and has operations at approximately 1,300 sites in 70 countries. It also has more than 131,000 employees globally, including more than 22,000 engineers and 11,000 software developers.

Of special relevance here is Honeywell’s ownership of Bendix Friction Metals (“Bendix”) until 2014.  Bendix, which makes automotive, truck and industrial brakes, allegedly ignored known health hazards and used asbestos in its brake- and clutch-pad products until 2001.

Honeywell’s claims about its Bendix asbestos-related liability are at the crux of the October 31 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Honeywell and two of its officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain liability and accounting practices from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Honeywell stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth began to surface on August 23, 2018, when the Company revealed that its “Bendix asbestos-related liability is estimated to be $1,693 million [sic] as of June 30, 2018.” The Company also acknowledged that, “this is $1,083 [sic] million higher than the Company’s prior estimation.”

Then, in a quarterly report filed with the SEC on October 19, 2018, Honeywell disclosed that, “the SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance had reviewed Honeywell’s prior accounting for liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims…” The Company also revealed that it learned about the initiation of a related investigation by the SEC Division of Enforcement on September 13, 2018.

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 31 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in relevant part: “In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos related matters, we record asbestos related insurance recoveries that are deemed probable.”

On another form filed with the SEC on April 20, 2018, Honeywell also said in relevant part: “We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using average resolution values for the previous five years.”

Finally, in a quarterly report filed with the SE on July 20, 2018, Honeywell reported that its asbestos related liabilities attributable to Bendix totaled $610 [sic] as of June 30, 2018.

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Honeywell’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$155.19
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$153.47
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

1.11%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 HON Lawsuit HON Class Action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 31, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Honeywell common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

HON Lawsuit HON Class Action

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announced SYF Class Action; SYF Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Retail Wholesale Department Store Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Synchrony Financial, et al 3:18-cv-01818 — On November 2, 2018, investors sued Synchrony Financial (“Synchrony” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs in the SYF class action allege that they acquired Synchrony stock at artificially inflated prices between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the SYF Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: SYF) bills itself as “one of the nation’s premier consumer financial services companies.”

As such, it says it provides “a range of credit products through programs” it has created with “a diverse group of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service providers” to help spur growth for its partners and afford financial flexibility to its customers.

Among other things, the Company issues “store branded credit cards,” from established retailers including but not limited to Lowe’s, Amazon and The Gap. According to the November 2 complaint, Synchrony is the largest provider of these “private-label” credit cards in the United States.

The Company, which says its roots in consumer finance can be traced back to 1932, is incorporated in Delaware and has corporate headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut. As of August 22, 2018, it had more than 740 million shares of stock outstanding.

Summary of Facts

Synchrony and two of its officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about its underwriting practices and the effects on its business from SEC filings and related material. By recklessly or knowingly doing so, they allegedly caused Synchrony stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth initially surfaced on April 28, 2017, when the Company announced, “disappointing first quarter 2017 earnings driven by poor loan performance.” At the time, the Company revealed that it “would be setting aside over $1.3 billion in reserves to cover probable loan losses,” representing a dramatic increase in reserves compared to the prior quarter.

In the aftermath of these disclosures, which sent its stock price tumbling, the Company claimed that it “tightened” credit standards. However, the Company never told investors that this tactic damaged its partnerships with retailers, the most significant of which was Walmart.

In fact, the public didn’t become aware of the rift between Synchrony and Walmart until July 12, 2018, when news broke about the potential termination of the partnership. Then, on July 26, 2018, the media confirmed that Walmart had ended its relationship with Synchrony and chosen a competitor as its replacement.

Finally, on November 1, 2018, Walmart sued Synchrony “alleging that the Company deliberately underwrote the Walmart/Synchrony credit card program in a way that exposes the program to significant unique credit risk.” Walmart is purportedly seeking damages “in an amount… estimated to be no less than $800 million.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 2 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a presentation at an industry conference on November 3, 2016, the Company presented information indicating that it: “Focused on a Higher Quality Asset Base,” and maintained “Disciplined Underwriting” since “at least the third quarter of 2010 through the third quarter of 2016.”

Then, in an annual report filed with the SEC on February 23, 2017, Synchrony, “affirmed that it complied with critical accounting estimates in preparing its consolidated and combined financial statements, including in establishing allowance for loan losses, which requires the Company to make its best estimate of probable losses inherent in the portfolio.”

Finally, on an April 20, 2018 conference call held to discuss Synchrony’s earnings for the first quarter 2018, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “We started to make refinements to our underwriting in the second half of 2016, and we continue to see the positive impact of those changes.”

During the same conference call, the second Individual Defendant also said the Company was “well entrenched” with its partners.

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Synchrony’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization :

SYF Class Action SYF Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 2, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Synchrony common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

SYF Class Action SYF Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net-worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


AVP Class Action AVP Lawsuit Avon

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces MCK Class Action; MCK Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

November 9, 2018

Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation, et al 3:18-cv-06525 — On October 25, 2018, investors sued McKesson Corporation (“McKesson” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the MCK class action allege that they acquired McKesson stock at artificially inflated prices between October 24, 3013 and January 25, 2017 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the MCK Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Founded in 1833 McKesson (NYSE:MCK) now has more than 76,000 employees and two primary divisions. Collectively, its business segments deliver “pharmaceutical and medical products and business services to retail pharmacies and institutional healthcare providers such as hospitals and health systems” throughout North America and globally.

According to the October 25 complaint, McKesson’s work as a pharmaceutical wholesaler generates the bulk of the Company’s income. In this capacity, McKesson “purchases drugs in bulk directly from manufacturers and then sells and distributes those drugs to pharmacy networks, hospitals and independent pharmacies.”

Summary of Facts

McKesson and two of its current and/or former officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about McKesson’s participation in certain activities and the efficacy of its internal controls over financial reporting from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused McKesson stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged after trading ended on January 25, 2017. At that time, McKesson announced “disappointing financial results for the third quarter of its fiscal year 2017.” Of importance is this context is that McKesson reported “lower than expected North American Pharmaceutical Distribution and Services business unit revenue of $41.7 billion” on the Current Report (Form 8-K) it filed with the SEC.

On another form filed with the SEC that day, McKesson reiterated the financial results it provided on the first firm and reported its financial and operating results for the third quarter of its fiscal year 2017. As alleged in the October 25 complaint, the “poor financial results were due to the materialization of the risk that the price fixing scheme would unravel and lead to materially lower revenues and profits.”

A closer look…

According to the October 25 complaint, the Company “participated in a price-fixing and anticompetitive scheme in the sale and distribution of generic pharmaceutical drugs with manufacturers and wholesalers” throughout the Class Period.”

The complaint also alleges that the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during that time.

For example, a form that the Company filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period contained signed certifications in which the Individual Defendants attested to “the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of fraud – or lack thereof.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on May 14, 2014, McKesson mentioned its “Code of Conduct” and specifically noted that it was “applicable to all employees, officers, and directors,” and that it was available on the Company’s website.

As set forth in the complaint, the Code of Conduct employed by McKesson at that time expressly stated, “This Code applies globally to all employees, officers and directors – regardless of position or tenure. We also seek business partners who share our values and commitment to doing business with integrity.”

The Code of Conduct employed by McKesson when it filed yet another form with the SEC on May 12, 2015, also contained stipulations to “Fair Competition.” It stated in pertinent part: “Laws in many of the places where we do business are intended to protect fair an [sic] open competition. To comply with these laws you should not discuss, coordinate, or agree with a competitor to fix prices, split or ‘fix’ bids, refuse to deal with (or boycott) a supplier or customer, or otherwise limit distribution channels.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on McKesson’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$151.10
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$138.55
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

8.31%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 MCK Class Action MCK Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 26, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in GM common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

 MCK Class Action MCK Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about the MCK Class Action Lawsuit, or any of our other institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Bank OZK Class Action; Bank OZK Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Colbert v. Bank OZK et al 4:18-cv-00793-JM — On October 26, 2018, investors sued Bank OZK (“Bank OZK” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. Plaintiffs in the Bank OZK class action allege that they acquired Bank OZK stock at artificially inflated prices between February 19, 2016 and October 18, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the Bank OZK Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: OZK) was known as the Bank of the Ozarks and traded under the ticker symbol “OZRK” until July 16, 0218.

It is a “retail and commercial bank with several subsidiaries focused on investment securities, development of real estate, and ownership of private aircraft.”

According to its website, Bank OZK had assets totaling more than $22 billion, deposits totaling more than $17.8 billion and total loans in the amount of $16.73 billion as of and for the nine months ended September 30, 2018. Its year-to-date income at that time totaled more than $302 million.

Bank OZK is incorporated under Arkansas laws and maintains its principal executive offices in Little Rock. Its history dates to 1903, when it was founded as a small community bank in Jasper, Arkansas.  It opened another bank in Ozark, Arkansas, 34 years later. In all, it now has more than 250 offices in 10 states.

Summary of Facts

Bank OZK and two of its officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the adequacy of Bank OZK’s internal controls to assess credit risk and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Bank OZK stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth began to emerge on October 18, 2018, when the Company issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2018 financial results. In it, Bank OZK disclosed significant decreases in both net income and diluted earnings per common share for the third quarter of 2018 compared to the same period for 2017.

More importantly, the Company revealed that it had “incurred combined charge-offs of $45.5 million on two Real Estate Specialties Group (‘RSEG’) credits” associated with two unrelated projects in South Carolina and North Carolina. The Company added that the projects had been in the Bank’s portfolio “since 2007 and 2008, and were previously classified as substandard.”

Then, on a conference call with analysts and investors held the next day, one of the Individual Defendants acknowledged that, “one credit became substandard in the second quarter of 2017 and the other in the fourth quarter of 2017.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 26 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company identified failure to properly manage its credit risk as something that could jeopardize its business. It said in relevant part: “Although we attempt to minimize our credit risk through prudent loan and lease underwriting procedures and by monitoring concentrations of our loans and leases, there can be no assurance that these underwriting and monitoring procedures will reduce these risks.”

The Company reported decreases in its substandard loans on forms filed with the SEC on May 6, 2016; August 8, 2016; November 8, 2016; May 5, 2017; November 7, 2017; and May 8, 2018. However, it also reported increases in its substandard loans on forms filed with the SEC on March 1, 2017; August 8, 2017; February 27, 2018; and August 7, 2018.

What the Company failed to disclose, however, was that it “lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk,” and that this meant some of its loans “posed an increased risk of loss.” The Company also failed to disclose, “certain substandard loans were reasonably likely to lead to charge-offs.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Bank OZK’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$34.85
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$25.52
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

26.77%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

 bank ozk lawsuit bank ozk class action

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 26, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in Bank OZK common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

Bank OZK Class Action Bank OZK Lawsuit

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


CAG Lawsuit, CAG Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces DY Class Action; DY Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Tung v. Dycom Industries, Inc., et al 9:18-cv-81448-RLR — On October 25, 2018, investors sued Dycom Industries, Inc. (“Dycom” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. The DY Class Action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Dycom stock at artificially inflated prices between November 20, 2017 and August 10, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the DY Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Dycom (NYSE: DY) engages in the provision of “specialty contracting services” through its subsidiaries throughout the United States, and in Canada.

These include: program management, engineering, construction, maintenance and installation services for telecommunications providers; underground facility locating services for various utilities; and “other construction and maintenance services” for electric and gas utilities.

Dycom is incorporated in Florida, and its principal offices are located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. According to its website, Dycom has more than 14,000 employees and 500 field offices.

According to the October 25 complaint, the Company had more than 31.2 million shares of common stock outstanding as of August 29, 2018.

Summary of Facts

The Company and two of its officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Dycom’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the Company’s reliance on permitting and tactical considerations for large projects, and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related materials. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Dycom stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that transpired on May 22, 2018 and August 13, 2018. Before the market opened on May 22, Dycom issued a press release in which it announced that it was “revising is financial guidance for the 2019 fiscal year ending January 26, 2019 to reflect the actual results for the quarter ended April 28, 2018 and the anticipated timing of activity on large customer programs and the related impacts on revenues and margins.”

Then, on August 13, Dycom issued another press release in which it revised its guidance for the “financial and operating results for the second fiscal quarter and six months ended July 28, 2018,” and announced “preliminary revenues and results for the second quarter below the previous guidance.”

During a conference call to discuss these matters, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “These preliminary results were impacted by large scale deployments that were slower than expected during the quarter, due to customer timing and tactical considerations and margins that were pressured from under-absorption of labor and field costs to the lower revenue level.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 25 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, during a November 20, 2017 conference call to discuss the Company’s financial and operating results for the first fiscal quarter ended October 28, 2017, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Engineering and construction activity is expected to increase throughout the balance of our second quarter and accelerate into calendar 2018. Customers are continuing to reveal with specificity new multi-year initiatives that are being planned and managed on a market-by-market basis.”

On the same conference call, the same Individual Defendant also said in relevant part: “As with prior initiations of large-scale network deployments, we expect some normal timing volatility and customer spending modulations as network deployment strategies evolve and tactical considerations, primarily permitting impact timing.”

Finally, during the same call, the second Individual Defendant also addressed the impact of new large projects on the gross margin, saying in relevant part: “We expect gross margin percentage to be in line or slightly better compared to the April 2017 quarterly margin, reflecting the expected mix of work activity and improving performance as services for large customer programs begin to accelerate.”

What Dycom failed to disclose, however was that its large projects were “highly dependent on permitting and tactical considerations,” and that it was “facing great uncertainties related to permitting issues,” and the resulting exposure to “near-term margin pressure and absorption issues.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Dycom’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$89.71
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$68.09
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

24.10%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the class period:

DY Lawsuit DY Class Action 

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased shares during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole.

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 24, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.  Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

DY Lawsuit DY Class Action

About Us

Levi & Korsinsky is a leading securities litigation firm with a hard-earned reputation for protecting investors’ rights and recovering losses arising from fraud, mismanagement and corporate abuse.  With thirty attorneys and offices in New York, Connecticut, California and Washington D.C., the firm is able to litigate cases in various jurisdictions in the U.S., England, and in other international jurisdictions.

Levi & Korsinsky provides portfolio monitoring services for high-net worth investors and institutional clients.  Our firm also assists investors in evaluating whether to opt-out of large securities class actions to pursue individual claims.

For additional information about this case or our institutional services, please contact us.


CWH Class Action CWH Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

CWH Class Action: Levi & Korsinsky Announces CWK Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

October 31, 2018

Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-07030 — On October 19, 2018, investors sued Camping World Holdings, Inc., (“Camping World” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. Plaintiffs in the CWH class action allege that they acquired Camping World stock at artificially inflated prices between March 8, 2017 and August 7, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the CWH lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: CWH) bills itself as “the leading outdoor and camping retailer.” As such, Camping World sells “an extensive assortment” of recreational vehicles (“RV”s) along with related RV and camping gear.

In addition to providing RV maintenance and repair services, Camping World claims that it offers “the industry’s broadest and deepest range of services, protection plans, products and resources.”

Camping World has been in business for more than 50 years and maintains its headquarters in Lincolnshire, Illinois. According to its website, it has more than 135 retail locations in 36 states and a “comprehensive e-commerce platform.”

Summary of Facts

Camping World, three of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”), and a private equity firm and an investment adviser (the “Crestview Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and financial condition during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain financial results and certain issues stemming from its acquisition of Gander Stores, from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Camping World stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events beginning during a three-day period between February 27 and March 1, 2018. That’s when the Company reveled “a host of accounting errors and the need to delay the filing of its 2017 annual financial report.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on March 13, 2018, the Company admitted that it identified some “material weaknesses” in its internal c