Class Action Reports


ATUS Lawsuit Altice 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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice 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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice 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.


FIT Class Action FIT Lawsuit

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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice 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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice 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.


MCK Class Action, MCK Lawsuit, McKesson Class Action, McKesson Lawsuit

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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice 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.


DY Lawsuit DY 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 controls over financial reporting. Due to these deficiencies, the Company said its internal controls over financial reporting were not effective as of December 31, 2017. On the same form, the Company also acknowledged that its disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of December 31, 2016, March 31, 2017, June 30, 2017, September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2017.

On May 8, 2018, Camping World also reported “disappointing financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2018.”

Everything came to a head on August 7, 2018, when the Company again reported “disappointing financial results,” this time for the quarter ended June 30, 2018. To make matters worse, the Company also admitted that, “problems in its Gander operations were more extensive than previously disclosed.”

A closer look…

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

For example, in a May 1, 2017 press release announcing that it was the winning bidder at a bankruptcy auction for “certain assets of Gander and its Overton’s boating business,” the Company stated in relevant part: “While we are obligated to assume a minimum of seventeen leases, our designation rights will allow us to operate stores and retain employees at a number to maximize profitability.”

Then, in a follow-up press release issued on May 8, 2017, the Company said in pertinent part: “As part of the Agreement, Camping World obtained the right to designate any real estate leases for assignment to Camping World or other third parties and initially plans to operate stores that it believes to have a clear path to profitability.”

Finally, in a press release issued January 4, 2018, the Company again asserted that the (Gander) stores would be operated with “a clear path to profitability.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$22.21
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$19.04
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

14.27%

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

CWH Class Action CWH 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 18, 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 Camping World 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:

CWH Class Action CWH 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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice Class Action

Class Action Reports

GOOG Class Action; Levi & Korsinsky Announces GOOG Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

October 24, 2018

Wicks v. Alphabet, Inc., et al 3:18-cv-06245-JSW — On October 11, 2018, investors sued Alphabet, Inc., (Google, Alphabet, GOOG, or the Company) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. The GOOG class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Alphabet stock at artificially inflated prices between April 23, 2018 and October 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 about the GOOG Lawsuit, contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG) is “mostly a collection of companies.” Of all of its subsidiaries, Google, Inc. (“Google”) is the largest and best known.

Among other things, Alphabet operates a social networking platform through Google. This platform, called Google+, facilitates communications between users and their families, friends and co-workers. As on similar social media platforms, Google+ users can supposedly control access to personal information through privacy settings.

The Company’s alleged failure to disclose certain information related to Google+ user privacy and its ability to safeguard related material is at the crux of the October 11 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Alphabet, two of its senior officers and Google’s CEO (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 failure of its security measures and consequences of said failure from SEC filings and related material. By recklessly or knowingly doing so, they allegedly caused Alphabet stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in an October 8, 2018, article published by The Wall Street Journal. Using information provided by “people briefed on the incident” and “documents reviewed,” the Journal reported that, “in March 2018, Google discovered a software glitch in its Google+ social network that had exposed users’ personal data to third parties, but ‘opted not to disclose the issue… in part because of fears that doing so would draw regulatory scrutiny and cause reputational damage.’”

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 11 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 discussed certain risk factors, saying in pertinent part: “Privacy concerns relating to our technology could damage our reputation and deter current and potential users or customers from using our products and services. If our security measures are breached resulting in the improper use and disclosure of user data, or if our services are subject to attacks that degrade or deny the ability of users to access our products and services, our products and services may be perceived as not being secure, users and customers may curtail or stop using our products and services, and we may incur significant legal and financial exposure.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on April 23, 2018, the Company said in pertinent part: “There have been no material changes to our risk factors since our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.”

The Company reiterated its claim about the lack of material changes to its risk factors on a form filed with the SEC on July 23, 2018.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$1,148.97
Closing stock price two trading days after disclosures:

 

$1,081.22
Two day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

5.9%

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

 GOOG Lawsuit, GOOG Class Action, Google Class Action, Google Lawsuit, Alphabet Class Action, Alphabet 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 10, 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 Alphabet 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:

GOOG Lawsuit, GOOG Class Action, Google Class Action, Google Lawsuit, Alphabet Class Action, Alphabet 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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice Class Action

Class Action Reports

SFIX Lawsuit; SFIX Class Action Announced by Levi & Korsinsky

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Sawicki v. Stitch Fix, Inc., et al 3:18-cv-06208-JD — On October 11, 2018, investors sued Stitch Fix, Inc. (“Stitch Fix” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the SFIX class action allege that they acquired Stich Fix stock at artificially inflated prices between June 8, 2018 and October 1, 2018). 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 SFIX lawsuit, please contact us today.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: SFIX) is a self-described “personal style service for men and women that evolves with your tastes, needs and lifestyle.”

Here’s how it works. Users visit the Company’s website, where they provide information about the types of clothes they like, the sizes they need, and their budgets on forms called “Style Profiles.” The customers then choose when they would like to get their package(s) and pay a specified fee, which is “applied as a credit” toward anything they keep from the shipment. Once they receive their shipment(s), customers have three days in which to decide what to keep and what to return (if anything). Customers are only charged once they “check out” on the Company’s website or app, and those who choose to keep everything receive a significant discount.

The Company’s claims about the number and growth rate of its “active clients” are at the crux of the October 11 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Stitch Fix and three of its officers (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 “active clients” and commitment to TV advertising from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Stitch Fix stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged when the Company announced its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2018 after the market closed on October 1, 2018. Stich Fix then admitted that it had, “signed up far fewer than expected new active clients during 4Q2018, which had ended more than two months earlier, on July 28, 2018.” The Company also “shocked the market by disclosing that Stitch Fix’s active client count was virtually flat, coming in at 2.7 million.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 11 complaint, Stitch Fix 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 beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Our third quarter results demonstrate continued positive momentum for Stitch Fix and the power of our unique ability to deliver personalized service at scale.”

In a letter to shareholders also issued and filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company reiterated claims that it had “[grown] active clients to 2.7 million as of April 28, 2018,” from 2.5 million in 2.5 million in the previous quarter of 2018, and from 2.07 million from the same period in 2017, reflecting “an increase of 614,000 and 29.6% year-over-year growth.”

On a form filed with the SEC on June 8, 2018, the Company specifically addressed its active client growth, saying in relevant part: “We believe that the number of active clients is a key indicator of our growth and the overall health of our business.”

On the same form, Stitch Fix discussed its marketing, saying in relevant part: “As our business has achieved a greater scale and we are able to support a large and growing client base, we have increased our investments in marketing to take advantage of more marketing channels to profitably acquire clients. Our current marketing efforts include client referrals, affiliate programs, partnerships, display advertising, television, print, radio, video, content, direct mail, social media, email, mobile ‘push’ communications, search engine optimization and keyword search campaigns.”

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

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

 sfix lawsuit, sfix class action, stitch fix lawsuit, stitch fix 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 10, 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 Stitch Fix 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:

sfix lawsuit, sfix class action, stitch fix lawsuit, stitch fix 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.

 

 


DY Lawsuit DY Class Action

Class Action Reports

TRVN Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announces TRVN Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Tomaszewski v. Trevena, Inc. et al 2:18-cv-4378 — On October 10, 2018, investors sued Trevena, Inc. (“Trevena” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The TRVN class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Trevena stock at artificially inflated prices between May 2, 2016 and October 8, 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 TRVN Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Founded in 2007, Trevena (NASDAQ: TRVN) is a self-described “clinical stage biopharmaceutical company.”

As such, it claims that it engages in the discovery, development of certain therapeutics with the intent to commercialize them. Specifically, the Company claims that these therapeutics “use a novel approach to target G protein coupled receptors, or GCPRs.”

Finally, Trevena says its history is “rooted in strong science,” and that it was created to “translate Nobel Prize-winning research into a new generation of groundbreaking medicines.”

The Company’s statements about certain interactions with the FDA are at the crux of the October 10 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Trevena and two of its former officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about one of its product candidates during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the FDA’s assessment of one of its product candidates from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Trevena stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out when the FDA released a Briefing Document related to Trevena on October 9, 2018. Contrary to the Company’s public representations, information in the document reflected the FDA’s concerns about Trevena’s product candidate, olicerdine. In fact, the document, which included minutes from an April 28, 2016 meeting revealed that the FDA:  “did not agree with the proposed dosing in the Phase 3 studies”; “did not agree with the proposed primary endpoint”; and “did not agree with the proposed non-inferiority (NI) margin for comparing morphine to olicerdine.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 10 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: “The Company has reached general agreement with the FDA on key elements of the Phase 3 program to support a New Drug Application (NDA) for olicerdine (TRV130), to which the FDA has granted Breakthrough Therapy designation.”

In the same press release, Trevena also said in pertinent part: “In addition, general agreement was reached on the company’s planned clinical, nonclinical, clinical pharmacology, and chemistry, manufacturing and control (CMC) activities to support the planned NDA.”

Trevena reiterated its statement about its announcement and alleged agreement with the FDA on forms filed with the SEC on May 5, 2016, and August 4, 2016. In each instance, the Company also filed certifications signed by the Individual Defendants in which they certified that based on their knowledge 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 such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.”

Both Individual Defendants also certified that they disclosed that they disclosed, “any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$2.98
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$1.91
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

64.09%

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

TRVN Lawsuit TRVN 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 10, 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 Trevena 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:

TRVN Lawsuit TRVN 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.

 


cmcm lawsuit, cmcm class action, cheetah mobile lawsuit, cheetah mobile class action

Class Action Reports

HTHT Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announces HTHT Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

October 18, 2018

Hayes v. Huazhu Group, Ltd., et al 2:18-cv-08633 — On October 1, 2018, investors sued Huazhu Group, Ltd., (“Huazhu” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. The HTHT class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Huazhu’s American Depository Shares (ADSs) at artificially inflated prices between May 14, 2018 and August 28, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the HTHT lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Formerly known as the China Lodging Group, Ltd., Huazhu (NASDAQ: HTHT) is a self-described, “multi-brand hotel group in China.” As such, it is dedicated to providing its customers with “high quality and diverse accommodation and transportation experience.”

To this end, it offers a loyalty/rewards program and hotel-booking platform called “H Rewards” that also allows more than 100 million members to access more than 3,000 hotels in more than 300 cities around the world. The Company also says its associated APP has been downloaded more than 20 million times.

According to its website, Huazhu has been listed on the NASDAQ since 2010 and reached a “long-term strategic alliance with ACCOR Hotels Group four years later. In 2017, a trade publication recognized Huazhu as the ninth largest hotel group in the world.

Summary of Facts

Huazhu and its CEO (the “Individual Defendant”) 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 Huazhu’s ability to safeguard its customers’ information and related matters from its press releases. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused the Company’s ADSs to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in media reports on August 28, 2018. That day, the media reported that, “Chinese police were investigating a possible leak of client information from Huazhu, stating that nearly 500 million pieces of customer-related information, including registration information, personal data and booking records, had emerged in an online post.”

A closer look…

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

For example, in a May 14 press release announcing its first quarter 2018 financial results, the Company stated in pertinent part: “The Company provides guidance for Q2 2018 net revenues growth of 24%-26% year over year, and revises upward the full year net revenues growth estimate ranges from 16%-19% to 18%-22% accordingly.”

Then, in an August 22 press release announcing its second quarter 2018 financial results, the Company stated in relevant part: “The Company provides guidance for Q3 2018 net revenues growth of 10-5%-12.5% year over year, and maintains the full year net revenues growth estimate range of 18%-22%.”

What the Company failed to disclose, however, was that it “lacked adequate security measures to protect customer information,” and that this could heighten its litigation risk, resulting in increased expenses. The Company also failed to disclose the potential impacts on its goodwill, including lower revenues.

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

Closing ADS price prior to disclosures:

 

$35.53
Closing ADS price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$33.98
One day ADS price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

4.36%

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

 HTHT lawsuit htht 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 7, 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 Huazhu ADSs 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:

HTHT lawsuit htht 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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice Class Action

Class Action Reports

AAOI Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announces AAOI Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Case Introduction

Taneja v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., et al 4:18-cv-3544 — On October 1, 2018, investors sued Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., (“Applied Optoelectronics” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Plaintiffs in the AAOI class action allege that they acquired Applied Optoelectronics stock at artificially inflated prices between August 7, 2018 and September 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 AAOI lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (NASDAQ: AAOI) is a “leading provider of fiber‑optic networking products. We serve three growing end-markets: Cable Television Broadband (CATV), fiber-to-the-home (FTTH), and internet data centers (Data Center).”

As such, the Company says it designs and makes “a range of optical communications products employing our vertical integration strategy from laser chips, components, subassemblies and modules to complete turn-key equipment.” Specifically, the Company says, it makes, designs and incorporates its own “analog and digital lasers using a proprietary Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE) fabrication process,” which it believes to be the only one of its kind in the industry.

Of importance here, however, are the Company’s claims that its lasers “are proven to be reliable over time and highly tolerant of changes in temperature and humidity (delivering millions of hours service), making them well-suited to the CATV and FTTH markets where networking equipment is often installed outdoors.”

Summary of Facts

Applied Optoelectronics 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 and prospects during the Class Period.

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

The truth came out in a report made by a Loop Capital Markets analyst on September 27, 2018. The analyst reported that, “the Company was experiencing product quality issues with certain transceivers in which its lasers failed after thousands of hours of operation.” In addition to downgrading the Company’s stock, the analyst “lowered gross margin and revenue expectations because the product quality issues suggested that the Company would start procuring lasers externally through 2019.”

The next day, the Company “cut its revenue guidance for the third quarter 2018 because it had identified an issue with its lasers that caused them to temporarily suspend shipments of certain transceivers.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 1 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 by Applied Optoelectronics on August 7, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “We remain confident in our competitive position. We believe our platform, proprietary manufacturing processes and vertical integration are keys to our success in the market, and remain focused on building on this strong foundation to position AIO for further success.”

In the same press release, the Company shared its Business Outlook for the third quarter of 2018. Among other things, its expectations included revenue in the range of $82 million to $92 million.

The Company shared the same financial information on a form filed with the SEC the next day.

What Applied Optoelectronics failed to disclose, however, was that some of its lasers were “susceptible to fail prematurely,” and that “certain of the Company’s transceivers utilizing these lasers would be materially affected.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Applied Optoelectronics Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$28.36
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$24.66
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

13.05%

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 November 30, 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 Applied Optoelectronics 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:

AAOI Lawsuit AAOI 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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice Class Action

Class Action Reports

CHGG Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announces Chegg Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

October 10, 2018

Shah v. Chegg Inc., et al 3:18-cv-05956-CRB — On September 27, 2018, investors sued Chegg, Inc., (“Chegg” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the Chegg class action allege that they acquired Chegg stock at artificially inflated prices between July 30, 2018 and September 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 information on the CHGG lawsuit, or to submit your losses, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE:CHGG) is a self-described “leading student-first interconnected learning platform.” As such, it provides the “tools and services that support students throughout their educational journey.”

Specifically, Chegg allows college and high school students to rent and sell textbooks, return their books, find affordable textbooks and find college textbooks. It also allows students to research different colleges and areas of study, along with various scholarships and internships. Finally, students using Chegg’s services can access online tutoring, study tools and standardized test preparation programs.

Summary of Facts

Chegg and its CEO (the “Individual Defendant”) now stand 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 Company’s ability to protect user data and detect unauthorized access to its system from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Chegg stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came on out when the Company filed a form with the SEC on September 25, 2018. On it, Chegg said it recently learned that “an unauthorized party gained access to a Company database” on or around April 29, 2018. The Company also said that the database that had been breached “hosts the user data for chegg.com and certain of the Company’s family of brands such as EasyBib.”

The compromised information potentially belonging to as many as 40 million active and inactive registered users included their names, email addresses, shipping addresses, Chegg user names, and “hashed” Chegg passwords.   At the time of the filing, however, the Company said it understood that, “no social security numbers or financial information such as users’ credit card numbers or bank account information were obtained.”   Chegg also said an investigation “supported by third-party forensics” was ongoing at the time of the filing.

A closer look…

As alleged in the September 27 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendant repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release issued on July 30, 2018, the Company said in relevant part: “We expanded our services, introduced the Chegg Math Solver subscription and, through the acquisition of StudyBlue, added flashcards, one of the most popular learning tools used by students around the world. We enter the fall semester with significant momentum, giving us confidence to once again raise our guidance for the year.”

On a form filed with the SEC that day, the Company also discussed its “vulnerability to unauthorized access to its systems and its data.” In this context it said in relevant part: “Efforts to prevent hackers from entering our computer systems are expensive to implement and may limit the functionality of our services. Though it is difficult to determine what, if any, harm may directly result from any specific interruption or attack, any failure to maintain performance, reliability, security and availability of our products and services and technical infrastructure may harm our reputation, brand and our ability to attract students to our website.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$32.33
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$28.42
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

12.09%

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

chegg lawsuit, chegg class action, chgg class action, chgg 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 November 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 Chegg 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:

chegg lawsuit, chegg class action, chgg class action, chgg 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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice Class Action

Class Action Reports

CPB Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announces Campbell Soup Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Marder v. Campbell Soup Company et al 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS — On September 28, 2018, investors sued Campbell Soup Company (“Campbell” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of New Jersey. The Campbell Soup class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Campbell stock at artificially inflated prices between August 31, 2017 and May 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 CPB Lawsuit, please feel free to contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE:CPB) is a self-described “global food company” that generates roughly $8 billion in annual sales. As such, it sells “a range of high-quality soups and simple meals, beverages, snacks and packaged fresh foods.”

The Company’s history dates to 1869, when fruit merchant Joseph Campbell and icebox maker Abraham Anderson teamed up to create the business now known as Campbell Soup Company. They opened their first plant in Camden, N.J., where the Company is still based today.

In 1894, Joseph Campbell was replaced as president and retired, severing the family’s ties with the business. It nevertheless retained his surname as part of its moniker and introduced the first can of Campbell’s ready-to-eat tomato soup the next year. In 1911, the business reached another significant milestone with the national distribution of Campbell’s soups. Spurred by continued domestic growth and success in the ensuing decades, Campbell created its international division in 1957.

Over the next 60 years, the Company continued its expansion and introduction of new products. In all, Campbell now has three divisions or segments. These are: “America’s Simple Meals and Beverages,” which features its flagship brand, Campbell’s soup; “Global Biscuits and Snacks”; and “Campbell Fresh.”

Summary of Facts

Campbell and two of its current and former 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 performance of the Campbell Fresh division from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so they allegedly caused Campbell stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that transpired between November 21, 2017 and May 18, 2018. In each case, the Company announced less than stellar financial performances linked to its Campbell Fresh Division.

Everything came to a head on May 18, when the Company, “reported disappointing financial results for the third straight quarter and admitted that the Campbell Fresh division was not profitable for the first nine months of fiscal 2018.” As a result, the Company also said it had to make its third consecutive quarterly reduction to is fiscal year 2018 guidance.

A closer look…

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

For instance, during a quarterly conference call held on August 31, 2017, one of the Individual Defendants said that the Company anticipated that the Campbell Fresh Division would “return to profitable growth in fiscal 2018.”

During the same conference call, the other Individual Defendant said the Company “expect[ed] [Campbell Fresh] to have sufficient capacity to support [the Company’s] growth plans in fiscal 2018.”

Then, on a November 21, 2017 conference call following the announcement of the Company’s disappointing quarterly results, one of the Individual Defendants tried to reassure investors by saying that the Company, “expect[ed] to see profitability pretty quick in Campbell Fresh.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$39.22
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$34.37
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

12.37%

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 November 27, 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 Campbell 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:

CPB Lawsuit, Campbell Soup 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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice Class Action

Class Action Reports

MGTI Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announces MGTI Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Klingberg v. MGT Capital Investments, Inc., et al 2:18-cv-14380-WHW-CLW–On September 28, 2018, investors sued MGT Capital Investments, Inc. (“MGT Capital” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs in the MGTI class action allege that they acquired MGT Capital stock at artificially inflated prices between October 9, 2015 and September 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 MGTI Lawsuit, please contact us today.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (OTC:MGTI) and formerly (NYSE:MGT) is now engaged in bitcoin mining, a process in which  “miners purchase powerful computing chips designed solely to solve the blocks which reward Bitcoins.”

According to its website, MGT Capital established its first facility and began bitcoin mining in Washington State in September 2016. As the result of a search for another location in 2017, MGT Capital opened its second bitcoin mining facility in northern Sweden. The Company claims that facility is large enough to house thousands of the “computing chips” which are essential to its operations.

In its prior iteration (from 2013 to 2016), the Company said, it was primarily “engaged in the business of acquiring, developing and monetizing assets in the online and mobile gaming space as well as the social casino industry.”

According to the September 28 complaint, MGT “announced it was transforming itself into a cyber security company” in May 2016.

Summary of Facts

MGT Capital, four of its current and former officers and or directors, and four shareholders (collectively 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 MGT Capital’s participation in certain activities and the consequences of said participation from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused MGT Capital stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth surfaced in a series of events transpiring between September 19, 2016 and September 7, 2018. The most significant of the developments in the fall of 2016 was an October 19 press release issued by the NYSE MKT shortly before the market closed. It revealed that, “the staff of NYSE Regulation has determined to commence proceedings to delist the common stock of MGT Capital Investments, Inc., …from the Exchange. Trading in the Company’s common stock on the NYSE MKT will be suspended immediately.”

In the most recent development, the SEC issued a press release in which it announced that it charged several entities and individuals involved in “lucrative market manipulation schemes.” Of relevance here is that six of the defendants named in that case also have ties to MGT Capital.

A closer look…

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

For example, on a form filed with the SEC on April 20, 2017, the Company acknowledged that its stock price was “subject to volatility, but it failed to disclose it was being manipulated.”

The Company also failed to disclose that it was being manipulated on another form filed with the SEC on April 2, 2018. Instead, it again addressed the potential volatility of its stock price saying: “The market price of our Common Stock could change in ways that may or may not be related to our business, our industry or our operating performance and financial condition and could negatively affect our share price ore result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our Common Stock.”

Along with that form, the Company filed certifications signed by two of the Individual Defendants “attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and disclosure of all fraud.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$0.59
Closing stock two trading days after disclosures:

 

$0.395
Two day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

33.05%

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

 MGTI Lawsuit, MGTI 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 November 27, 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 MGT Capital 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:

MGTI Lawsuit, MGTI 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.


ATUS Lawsuit Altice Class Action

Class Action Reports

HAS Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announce Hasbro Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Hasbro, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-00543-WES-LDA–On September 28, 2018, investors sued Hasbro, Inc. (“Hasbro” or “the Company”) in United States District Court, District of Rhode Island. The Hasbro class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Hasbro stock at artificially inflated prices between April 24, 2017 and October 23, 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 HAS Lawsuit please contact us today.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Hasbro (NASDAQ:HAS) bills itself as “a global play and entertainment company.” As such, it says it is dedicated to “Creating the World’s Best Play Experiences” through its “toys and games to television, movies, digital gaming and consumer products.”

In all, Hasbro says, its “extraordinarily robust portfolio” includes more than 1,500 brands. The Company also says that it works with  “many of the industry’s best partners, including STAR WARS, MARVEL, DISNEY PRINCESS and DISNEY FROZEN, as well as DREAMWORKS TROLLS and SESAME STREET.”

Hasbro is based in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.

Summary of Facts

Hasbro 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 and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about its sales in key foreign markets and the financial status of one of its largest customers (Toys “R” Us) from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Hasbro stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events on October 23, 2017. First, the Company issued a press release announcing third quarter 2017 financial results for the period that ended on October 1, 2017. In it, Hasbro admitted that the Toys “R” Us bankruptcy filing in the United States and Canada had a “negative impact on our quarterly revenues and operating profit.”

In an ensuing conference call with analysts and investors held to discuss the Company’s earnings and operations, both Individual Defendants commented on ongoing sales difficulties in the U.K. and Brazil. One said in pertinent part: “The challenges we saw emerging in the second quarter have continued in the U.K. and Brazil, and we anticipate this will continue for the remainder of the year.”

A closer look…

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

For example, during a conference call with analysts and investors held at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants said in relevant part: “We are well positioned to execute against the storytelling and brand initiatives for the year while investing to expand the reach of our brands and deliver profitable growth for this year and future years.”

In response to a question about the Company’s “customer relationship” with Toys “R” Us during the conference call, the same Individual Defendant also said in pertinent part: “So I’d say, overall, we’re partnering with that retailer and all our retailers, both in-store and omnichannel online. And we are seeing a great convergence of content, commerce and innovation happening at retail and also particularly in the online space.”

Then on a July 24, 2017 conference call with analysts and investors, the same Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “…the U.K. and Brazil are facing challenging macroeconomic issues impacting both consumers and retailers. This is having a near-term impact on our revenue and operating profit in the international segment, but our full year outlook for this segment is positive.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$92.69
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$89.75
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

3.17%

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

 hasbro lawsuit, HAS Lawsuit, Hasbro Class Action, HAS 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 November 27, 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 Hasbro 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:

hasbro lawsuit, HAS Lawsuit, Hasbro Class Action, HAS 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.


FIT Class Action FIT Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

OPK Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announce Opko Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

October 4, 2018

Steinberg v. Opko Health, Inc. et al 1:18-cv-23786 — On September 14, 2018, investors sued Opko Health, Inc., (Opko, OPK, or the Company) in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiffs in the Opko class action allege that they acquired Opko stock at artificially inflated prices between September 26, 2013 and September 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 OPK Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Opko (NASDAQ: OPK) engages in the development, manufacturing and distribution of “an extensive array of diagnostics and therapeutics for a wide range of indications and conditions.”

Founded in 1991, the Company employs more than 6,000 people in the United States and abroad. These employees work in Opko’s diagnostics and pharmaceutical divisions in the U.S., and in its “pharmaceutical platforms” in Ireland, Chile, Spain, and Mexico.

Opko is incorporated in Delaware and based in Miami, Florida. It had more than 550 million shares of common stock outstanding as of August 1, 2018.

Summary of Facts

Opko 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 Opko’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they stand accused of omitting truthful information about the accuracy of Opko’s financial reporting and its participation in certain activities from SEC filings. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Opko stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a lawsuit that the SEC filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 7 2018. In it, the SEC alleged that “a number of entities and persons, including Opko and [its CEO Philip] Frost” had engaged in a so-called “pump-and-dump” scheme designed to “inflate the stock prices of various companies in which Opko and/or Frost had made substantial investments.” As alleged by the SEC the participants “quickly dumped their shares and left public investors holding the bag.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the September 14 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants either made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period, or caused false and misleading public statements to be made during that time.

For example, by signing the Company’s annual and quarterly SEC filings during the class Period, the Defendants “attested to the accuracy of the Company’s financial reporting and represented that the financial statements contained no material misrepresentations.”

As part of the alleged “pump-and-dump” scheme, they accused Seeking Alpha to publish a September 26, 2013 article that “promoted the stock of Biozone” by “citing Frost’s ownership in Biozone based on his reputation as a savvy investor in biotech companies.”

Then, as part of the same scheme, they also caused Seeking Alpha to publish an April 8, 2015 article “in order to promote the stock of MabVax, by using Frost’s and Opko’s reputation…”

Finally, the Company and Individual Defendants “never disclosed their participation” in the alleged “pump-and-dump” activities.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$5.59
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$4.58
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

18.12%

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

 OPK Lawsuit, OPK Class Action, Opko Lawsuit, Opko 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 November 13, 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 Opko 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:

OPK Lawsuit, OPK Class Action, Opko Class Action, Opko 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.


FIT Class Action FIT Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

COCP Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announces COCP Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Pepe v. Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., et al 2:18-cv-14091-KM-JBC — On September 20, 2018, investors sued Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., (Cocrystal, COCP, or the Company) in United States District Court, District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs in the COCP class action allege that they acquired Cocrystal stock at artificially inflated prices between September 23, 2013 and September 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 COCP Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: COCP) was formerly known as BioZone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“BioZone”).  Its creation resulted from a merger between BioZone and Cocrystal Discovery, Inc., in 2014.

According to its website, Cocrystal is now a “clinical stage biotechnology company discovering and developing novel antiviral therapeutics that target the replication machinery of hepatitis viruses, influenza viruses, and noroviruses.” As such, it uses “unique structure-based technologies and Nobel Prize winning expertise to create first- and best-in-class antiviral drugs.”

Cocrystal is incorporated in Delaware and based in Tucker, Georgia. On its website, the Company identifies its owners as “two private investors,” who own approximately 60 percent of Cocrystal, including the Frost Group. It also identifies OPKO Health, Inc., Brace Pharma Capital, LLC and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. as “corporate investors.”

Summary of Facts

Cocrystal, six of its former officers and/or directors, and eight additional co-defendants (collectively the “Individual Defendants”) are 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 commission of certain acts and compliance with the SEC’s disclosure rules from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Cocrystal stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out when the SEC issued a press release on September 7, 2018. In it, the SEC announced that it charged numerous individuals and “associated entities” for their participation in “long-running fraudulent schemes that generated over $27 million from unlawful stock sales and caused significant harm to retail investors who were left holding virtually worthless stock.” Of significance here is that several people with ties to Cocrystal and/or BioZone are identified as defendants in the SEC’s case.

A closer look…

As alleged in the September 20 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made or caused the issuance of false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on September 26, 2013, Seeking Alpha published an article touting BioZone by “using Defendant [Phillip] Frost’s ownership in BioZone and reputation as a successful biotech investor.” The article also “misleadingly stated that BioZone had a formulation ready to be tested and brought to the billion-dollar injectable drug market.”

Furthermore, the author, John H. Ford, failed to disclose that BioZone shareholder Barry C. Honig had paid him to write the article.

Then, along with a form filed with the SEC on March 31, 2014, the Company included certifications signed by two of the Individual Defendants that 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.”

The Company included the same, signed certifications along with SEC filings on five additional occasions during the Class Period.

What Cocrystal failed to disclose was that it “engaged in a pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate the Company’s stock price,” and that its participation in this activity would result in government scrutiny. Cocrystal also failed to disclose that it failed to “abide by SEC disclosure regulations.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$3.74
Closing stock price two trading days after disclosures:

 

$3.16
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

15.51%

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

 COCP Lawsuit, COCP Class Action, Cocrystal Class Action, CoCrystal 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 November 19, 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 Cocrystal 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:

COCP Lawsuit, COCP Class Action, Cocrystal Lawsuit, Cocrystal 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.


FIT Class Action FIT Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

MCHP Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announces MCHP Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Jackson v. Microchip Technology, Inc. et al 2:18-cv-02914-ESW — On September 14, 2018, investors sued Microchip Technology, Inc. (Microchip, MCHP, or the Company) in United States District Court, District of Arizona. Plaintiffs in the MCHP class action allege that they acquired Microchip stock at artificially inflated prices between March 2, 2018 and August 9, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the MCHP Lawsuit, please contact us today.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: MCHP) bills itself as a “leading provider of microcontroller, mixed-signal, analog and Flash-IP solutions.” As such, it says it provides “low-risk product development, lower total system cost and faster time to market for thousands of diverse customer applications worldwide.”

According to its website, Microchip’s products are used in numerous industries ranging from aerospace and defense to the automotive industry and computing.

Microchip is based in Chandler, Arizona and incorporated in Delaware.

Summary of Facts

Microchip and two of its senior officers  (the “Individual Defendants”) are 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 about omitting truthful information about Microchip’s acquisition of Microsemi Corp. (“Microsemi”) from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Microchip stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged on August 9, 2018, when the Company announced its financial results for the quarter that ended on June 30, 2018. These results “included one month of Microsemi’s operating results (from the date of acquisition).”

In a conference call held after the announcement that day, one of the Individual Defendants “acknowledged that Microchip’s duel diligence on Microsemi prior to the acquisition had been in adequate and that much of Microsemi’s revenue reported prior to the merger was not supported by end user demand, but rather resulted from excess distribution into the channel.”

During the August 9 conference call, Microchip also announced that it anticipated lower revenue for the second fiscal quarter of 2019 than previously expected. Analysts then identified the “cause of the revenue shortfall as Microsemi’s aggressive pre-acquisition recognition practices.”

A closer look…

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

For example, in a March 1, 2018 press release in which Microchip announced it had “signed a definitive agreement to acquire Microsemi Corp., one of the Individual Defendants said in relevant part: “Microchip and Microsemi have a strong tradition of delivering customers and markets, thus creating highly valued and long-lasting revenue streams.”

Then, at an Investor Day presentation held the same day, one of the Individual Defendants stated in pertinent part: “Microsemi was ‘the first company we’re buying in our string of acquisitions, where their gross margin is higher than us…’”

Finally, in a press release issued on May 31, 2018, the Company also stated in relevant part: “Microchip expects Microsemi to add $160 million to $180 million to its June quarter results, and now expects consolidated non-GAAP net sales for the June quarter to be up 17% to 24% sequentially.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$98.08
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$87.41
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

10.88%

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

 

MCHP Lawsuit, MCHP Class Action, Microchip Lawsuit, Microchip 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 November 16, 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 Microchip 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:

MCHP Lawsuit, MCHP Class Action, Microchip Lawsuit, Microchip 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.


FANH Class Action, FANH Lawsuit, Fanhua Class Action, Fanhua Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

FANH Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announces Fanhua Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

September 27, 2018

Long v. Fanhua, Inc. et al 1:18-cv-08183-PAE — On September 7, 2018, investors sued Fanhua, Inc. (Fanhua, FANH, or the Company) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The FANH class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Fanhua’s American depositary shares (ADS) at artificially inflated prices between April 20, 2018 and August 27, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation, within the Fanhua Lawsuit, for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the Fanhua Class Action (FANH Lawsuit), please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Founded 20 years ago, the Company (NASDAQ: FANH), used to be known as CNinsure, Inc. It bills itself as a “leading independent online-to-offline (“O2O”) financial services provider.”

As such, Fanhua provides “a wide variety of life and property and casualty insurance products, and provide insurance claims adjusting services” through its online platforms and offline sales and service network.

By the end of June 2018, Fanhua claims, it had nine insurance agencies “including two with national operating licenses and three insurance claims adjusting companies.” The company also claims that it employed more than 630,000 sales agents and more than 1,100 claims adjusters at that time. Finally, the Company boasts it had more than 680 sales and service centers in 31 provinces across China by the end of June.

Summary of Facts

Fanhua 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 Fanhua’s business and accounting practices from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Fanhua’s ADS to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on August 27, 2018, when stock analyst Seligmen Investments published an article describing Fanhua as a “questionable company.” The article also examined “a history of alleged fraud within the Company, including accounting regularities in the Company’s second quarter 2018 financial results.”

A closer look…

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

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC on April 20, 2018, the Company said in relevant part: “The audit committee oversees our accounting and financial reporting processes and the audits of the financial statements of our company.”

On the same form, the Company listed the committee’s responsibilities. Of relevance here is the Company’s assertion that the committee is responsible for, “reviewing and approving all proposed related-party transactions,” and “reviewing major issues as to the adequacy of our internal controls and any special audit steps adopted in light of material control deficiencies.”

Finally, on August 21, 2018, the Company filed a form announcing its financial results for the second quarter of 2018 with the SEC. While commenting on the performance, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Total life insurance premiums reached RMB 1.5 billion, up 69.8% year-over-year, outpacing the overall industry growth rate. This was driven by the strong growth across all of the key operational metrics in our life insurance segment.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$26.15
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$23.40
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

10.52%

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

 FANH Class Action FANH Lawsuit Fanhua Lawsuit Fanhua 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 November 6, 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 Fanhua 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:

FANH Class Action FANH Lawsuit Fanhua Class Action Fanhua 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.


Engility Merger EGL Merger

Class Action Reports

Qurate Class Action Filed, Levi & Korsinsky Announces QRTEA Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

September 18, 2018

Bristol County Retirement System v. Qurate Retail, Inc. et al 1:18-CV-02300-MEH — On September 6, 2018, investors sued Qurate, Inc. (Qurate, QRTEA, or the Company) in United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Plaintiffs in the QRTEA class action allege that they acquired Qurate stock at artificially inflated prices between August 5, 2015 and September 7, 2016 (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 QRTEA Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Qurate (NASDAQ:QRTEA/QRTEB) is comprised of “eight leading retail brands, reaching approximately 370 million homes worldwide through 16 television networks and multiple ecommerce sites, social pages, mobile apps, print catalogs and in-store destinations.”

Qurate’s brands include the TV shopping channels QVC and HSN, Zulily, Ballard Designs, Front Gate, Garnet Hill, grandinroad and Improvements. In all, the Company says, its brands reach 23 million customers.

Of all of its brands, QVC is the largest, “accounting for roughly 85 percent of the Company’s total revenue in 2016.” QVC programming in the United States is distributed “live 24 hours per day, 364 days per year,” and features an average of 800 products per week. Its live programming is distributed for eight to 24 hours per day in its international markets. QVC’s product categories include: home, apparel, beauty, electronics and jewelry.

Qurate’s claims about its growth and its failure to disclose the correlation of its growth with changes related to a QVC payment system called “Easy Pay” are at the crux of the September 6 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Qurate and four of its current and former officers and 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 are accused of omitting truthful information about Qurate’s growth and its correlation with changes to QVC’s “Easy Pay” program 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 initially surfaced on August 5, 2015, when the Company issued a press release announcing the financial results for the quarter that ended on June 30, 2016. In it, the Company attributed a drop in QVC sales to “significant headwinds.”

During a conference call with analysts and investors that day, the Company admitted that there were “higher than expected write-offs on Easy Pay purchase from October and November last year.” However the Company also blamed other factors for the drop in sales.

Then at an industry conference held September 8, 2016, Qurate finally disclosed the extent of the impact “Easy Pay issues” had on its business.

A closer look…

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

For instance, on a Third Quarter 2015 Earnings Call with analysts and investors on November 4, 2015, one of the Individual Defendants stated in pertinent part: “This strong customer growth was fueled by engaging products and programming, the continued work on personalization initiatives, enhanced digital marketing and growing mobile penetration.”

On its Fourth Quarter 2015 Earnings Call with analysts and investors, which was held on February 26, 2016, the same Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “We think these strong customer dynamics are the result of our focus on compelling merchandise and content and our increasing focus on personalizing our digital platforms.”

Finally, during an Investor Meeting Call held May 15, 2016, another Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “…since 2008, we’ve been able to manage our bad debt to about 1% of our business, and that is not starting to grow in any kind of dramatic way.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$21.46
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$19.59
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

8.71%

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

 QRTEA Lawsuit, Qurate 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 November 5, 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 Qurate 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:

QRTEA Lawsuit, Qurate 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.


Engility Merger EGL Merger

Class Action Reports

CRON Lawsuit Filed; Levi & Korsinsky Announces Cronos Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Chanda v. Cronos Group, Inc. et al 1:18-cv-08047-NRB — On September 4, 2018, investors sued Cronos Group, Inc. (“Cronos” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Cronos stock at artificially inflated prices between August 21, 2018 and August 30, 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 CRON Lawsuit, please contact us today.

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Cronos (NASDAQ:CRON) is “geographically diversified and vertically integrated cannabis group that operates within Health Canada’s Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations and distributes globally.”

Cronos currently has 100 percent ownership of two Canadian companies that are licensed to produce, cultivate and sell medical marijuana. It also has partial ownership of a third Canadian company that is licensed to do so.

The Company is legally incorporated in Ontario, Canada, and based in Toronto.

Summary of Facts

Cronos and one of its officers/directors (the “Individual Defendant”) 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 size of the Company’s distribution agreements with the provinces from a press release. 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 on August 30, 2018, when Citron Research published an article in which it alleged that, Cronos had been misleading investors by “purposely not disclosing the size of its distribution agreements with the provinces – unlike every other major cannabis player.” It also alleged that the reason for these omissions was that, “the agreements are so small that they could never justify the premium investors are paying for stock.”

A closer look…

According to the September 4 complaint, the Company and Individual Defendant made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued on August 21, 2018, the Company said in relevant part: “Cronos Group has secured listings and signed binding master supply agreements with both the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation and the BC Liquor Distribution Branch.”

In the same press release, the Company also stated in relevant part: “The Company has also secured listings and has accepted supplier terms with the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation and Prince Edward Island Liquor Corporation.”

Finally, in the same press release, the Individual Defendant said in pertinent part: “Day one we are ready to build and establish our brand through premium products and we are committed to building strong relationships with the provinces and our customers.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$12.74
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$9.12
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

28.41%

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

 CRON Lawsuit, Cronos 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 November 5, 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 Cronos 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:

CRON Lawsuit, Cronos 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.


Engility Merger EGL Merger

Class Action Reports

PVG Class Action Filed, Levi & Korsinsky Announces PVG Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Holtan v. Pretium Resources, Inc. et al 1:18-cv-08199-LAP — On September 7, 2018, investors sued Pretium Resources, Inc. (“Pretium” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the PVG class action allege that they acquired Pretium stock at artificially inflated prices between July 21, 2016 and September 6, 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 PVG Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Pretium (NYSE:PVG) engages in the acquisition, exploration and development of “precious metal resource properties” in North, Central and South America.

According to its website, the Company “is creating value through gold by ramping up production of the 100%-owned Brucejack Mine.” Pretium says the mine, which is located near Stewart in northwestern British Columbia, is a “2,700 tonnes-per-day high-grade gold underground mine.” Commercial operations there started in June 2017, with production totaling “230,000 ounces of gold during the first nine months of ramp-up.”

Finally, the Company says a feasibility study initially done in 2014 and updated two years later “has outlined Proven and Probable mineral reserves in Brucejack’s Valley of the Kings comprising 8.1 million ounces of gold (15.6 million tonnes grading 16.1 grams per tonne gold).”

Pretium’s claims about gold production at the Brucejack Mine are at the crux of the September 7 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Pretium and two of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) are 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 Brucejack Mine from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Pretium stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth surfaced through a series of events that began when the Company issued a press release on January 23, 2018. In it, Pretium “disclosed lower gold production than previously disclosed, and also delayed achievement of steady state gold production and operation of the grade control program.”

Then, on September 6, 2018, Viceroy Research issued a report in which it accused the Company of distorting its mining results. Of significance here is Viceroy’s assertion that: “The overwhelming majority of our research indicates Pretium manipulated results of its bulk sample program through an overreliance on samples taken for the Cleopatra vein, thereby artificially inflating Pretium’s grades and reserve projections for the Brucejack Mine…”

A closer look…

As alleged in the September 7 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 July 3,2017, the Company said in pertinent part: “During the month of June, the process plant at Brucejack processed 70,805 tonnes of ore (87.4% of one-twelfth of yearly nameplate capacity) for an average of 2,360 tonnes per day.”

In another press release issued by the Company on September 21, 2017, Pretium said in relevant part: “All of the main operating units in the mill building are performing as expected, and the plant is consistently operating at nameplate capacity of 2,700 tonnes per day or better.”

Lastly, in a press release issued March 8, 2018, Pretium said in relevant part: “During the six months ended December 31, 2017, a total of 532,763 tonnes of ore, equivalent to a through put rate of 2,895 tonnes per day, was processed. The mill feed grade was 9.4 grams per tonne gold and 96.2 percent. We continue to review the mill process to optimize recoveries.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Pretium Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$7.71
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$6.94
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

9.99%

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

 PVG Lawsuit PVG 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 November 6, 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 Pretium 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:

PVG Lawsuit PVG 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.


Engility Merger EGL Merger

Class Action Reports

LCI Class Action Filed; Levi & Korsinsky Announces LCI Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

September 13, 2018

Strougo v. Lannett Company, Inc. et al 2:18-cv-03635 — On August 24, 2018, investors sued Lannett Company, Inc. (“Lannett” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in the LCI Class Action allege that they acquired Lannett stock at artificially inflated prices between February 7, 2018 and August 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 LCI Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: LCI) bills itself as “a leading manufacturer of over 100 unique pharmaceutical product families that save and enhance people’s lives.” As such, it says it has “top-notch facilities for research and development, manufacturing, packaging, business, and distribution” in four states.

According to the August 24 complaint, most of the Company’s revenue is generated through the sale of drugs that are “bioequivalent to certain patented drugs once their patent expires.”

The Company’s claims about its exclusivity agreement with its leading supplier, Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals (“JSP”) are at the heart of the August 24 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Lannett and two of its senior officers (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 the status of Lannett’s agreement with JSP 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 before the market opened on August 20, 2018, when the Company announced that its distribution agreement with JSP would not be renewed.

A closer look…

As alleged in the August 24 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false or misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued on February 7, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “While we have revised several components of our outlook, we expect our profitability on an adjusted basis for the fiscal 2018 full year to slightly improve from our previous guidance.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on February 8, 2018, the Company referred to its JSP Distribution Agreement, saying in relevant part: “During the renewal term of the JSP Distribution Agreement, the Company is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to purchase minimum dollar quantities of JSP products. If the Company does not meet the minimum purchase requirements, JSP’s sole remedy is to terminate the JSP Distribution Agreement.”

Finally, on an earnings call with analysts for the third quarter of 2018, one of the Individual Defendants answered a question about the JSP Distribution Agreement, saying in relevant part: “…I’m optimistic that we’ll get a chance to renew this agreement when it’s right for, there is clearly nothing more important to our business than doing so, and we’ll continue to be focused on doing just that.”

What the Company failed to disclose, however, was that it “faced a substantial risk of the loss of its exclusivity agreement with JSP,” and that as a result, its reported revenues were unsustainable.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$13.50
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$5.35
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

60.37%

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

 LCI Lawsuit, LCI Class Action, Lannett

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 October 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 Lannett 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:

LCI Lawsuit, LCI Class Action, Lannett

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 Investigates Fairness Surrounding K2M Merger KTWO

Class Action Reports

PZZA Class Action Filed; Levi & Korsinsky Announces Papa John’s Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Danker v. Papa John’s International, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-07927 — On August 30, 2018, investors sued Papa John’s International, Inc. (“Papa John’s) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the PZZA class action allege that they acquired Papa John’s stock at artificially inflated prices between February 25, 2014 and July 19, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of Papa John’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the Papa John’s Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Papa John’s (NASDAQ: PZZA) has been in business since 1984 and is “among the largest carryout and pizza delivery restaurant chains in the United States.” It also has restaurants and provides pizza delivery services overseas. Specifically, Papa John’s claims it has more than 5,000 locations in 45 countries and territories globally.

Founded by John Schnatter, Papa John’s is incorporated in Delaware and is based in Louisville, Kentucky.

Schnatter served as Papa John’s CEO from April 20ll through December 2017. The company’s failure to disclose his alleged misconduct, as well as that of other executives, is at the crux of the August 30 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Papa John’s 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, compliance and operational policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about inappropriate workplace behavior and the company’s ability to prevent it from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Papa John’s stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events beginning after the market closed on July 10 and on July 11, 2018. During that time, news broke that Schnatter, who was then chairman of the board, had used a racial slur during a conference call in May 2018. Papa John’s announced Schnatter’s resignation as chairman after its stock price dropped by more than 4.8% on July 11.

Then, on July 19, 2018, Forbes published an article about the “toxic culture” at Papa John’s, in which it cited “interviews with 37 current and former Papa John’s employees – including numerous executives and board members.” As the article stated, “Schnatter’s alleged behavior ranges from spying on his workers to sexually inappropriate conduct, which has resulted in at least two confidential settlements.” The article further stated that Schnatter “installed loyalists in the firm’s top ranks, which enabled its ‘bro’ culture” in order to shield himself.

A closer look…

The August 30 complaint alleges that Papa John’s and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC on February 25, 2014, Papa John’s acknowledged that it had adopted a written code of ethics (the “Code of Ethics and Business Conduct”), and noted in pertinent part that it “applies to our directors, officers and employees.”

The Code of Ethics and Business Conduct referenced on the form also states in pertinent part: “In addition, Papa John’s is committed to providing a workplace for its team members that is free of harassment or other intimidating, hostile or offensive behavior based on any of the above characteristics or any other characteristic protected by applicable law.”

On another form filed with the SEC on February 27, 2018, Papa John’s said in relevant part: “If we are unsuccessful in managing incidents that erode consumer trust or confidence, particularly if such incidents receive considerable publicity or result in litigation, our brand value and financial results could be negatively impacted.”

What Papa John’s failed to disclose, however, was that its executives, including Schnatter, “had engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and other inappropriate workplace conduct at the Company.” Papa John’s also failed to disclose that its Code of Ethics and Business Conduct lacked the provisions necessary to prevent such conduct, and also the effects that this conduct have had on the business.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$53.60
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$51.00
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

4.85%

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

Papa John's Lawsuit, PZZA 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 October 29, 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 Papa John’s 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:

Papa John's Lawsuit, PZZA 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 Investigates Fairness Surrounding K2M Merger KTWO

Class Action Reports

CBS Lawsuit Filed; Levi & Korsinsky Announces CBS Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Samit v. CBS Corporation et al 1:18-cv-07796 — On August 27, 2018, investors sued CBS Corporation (“CBS” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the CBS Class Action allege that they acquired CBS stock at artificially inflated prices between February 14, 2014 and July 27, 2018 (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 about the CBS Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE:CBS) is a “mass media company that creates and distributes industry-leading content across a variety of platforms to audiences around the world.”

CBS claims that it owns “the most-watched television network in the U.S.,” and that it has “businesses with origins that date back to the dawn of the broadcasting age.” Its businesses include but are not limited to: CBS Television Network, The CW, Network Ten Australia, CBS Television Studios, CBS Studios International, and CBS Television Distribution.

Summary of Facts

CBS and two of its senior executives and/or directors now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying or withholding critical information about the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about acts perpetrated by certain executives, and the efficacy and enforcement of certain policies from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused CBS stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged on July 27, 2018, when “media outlets reported that The New Yorker would shortly publish an article detailing allegations of sexual misconduct by CBS chairman and chief executive officer Leslie Moonves and other executives at the Company.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the August 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 on April 11, 2014, the Company referenced its Business Conduct Statement (BCS). Section VI of that document states in pertinent part: “CBS has a ‘zero tolerance’ policy for sexual harassment…”

On another form filed with the SEC on April 10, 2015, the Company again referred to its BCS, saying in relevant part: “The Company’s Business Conduct Statement (BCS) sets forth the Company’s standards for ethical conduct that are expected of all directors and employees of the Company.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on February 17, 2017, the Company said in pertinent part: “The Company’s business depends upon the continued efforts, abilities and expertise of its chief executive officer and other key employees and entertainment personalities.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$57.53
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$54.01
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6.12%

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

CBS Lawsuit, CBS 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 October 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 CBS 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:

CBS Lawsuit CBS 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.


Class Action Reports

NVRO Lawsuit; Levi & Korsinsky Announces NVRO Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

September 12, 2018

Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. Nevro Corp. et al 3:18-cv-05181 — On August 23, 2018, investors sued Nevro Corp. (Nevro, NVRO or the Company) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the NVRO class action allege that they acquired Nevro stock at artificially inflated prices between January 8, 2018 and July 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 NVRO Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE:NVRO) is a self-described medical device business that has developed “an innovative, evidence-based non-pharmacologic neuromodulation platform for the treatment of chronic pain.”

Nevro has been in business since 2006.  Within two years, it engaged in “groundbreaking” research at Stanford University and “validation research” at U.C. Davis. The FDA approved Nevero’s HF10 therapy in 2015.

The Company’s claims about its HF10 therapies and related spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems are at the crux of the August 23 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Nevro and two of its senior officers (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 Nevro’s acquisition and use of certain trade secrets in connection with the development of its SCS systems from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Nevro stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events beginning on April 27, 2018. On that day, the public learned that Boston Scientific sued Nevro for alleged patent infringement, theft of trade secrets and tortious interference with contract.

Then, on May 7, 2018, Nevro announced its first quarter results for 2018 and attributed a significant increase in operating expenses to “legal expenses associated with intellectual property litigation” with Boston Scientific.

Developments continued in early July 2018, when analysts downgraded Nevro’s stock and reported on a tentative ruling in Nevro’s ongoing litigation with Boston Scientific. The tentative ruling in that case “invalidated at least five of the patents related to Nevro’s purportedly ‘proprietary’ HF10 therapy and Senza systems.”

Finally, before the market opened on July 13, 2018, the Company announced that it had fired its vice president of worldwide sales.

A closer look…

As alleged in the August 23 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 January 8, 2018, the Company stated in pertinent part: “Nevro has developed and commercialized the SENZA spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system, an evidence-based, non-pharmalogic neuromodulation platform for the treatment of chronic pain. The SENZA system is the only SCS system that deliver’s Nevro’s proprietary HF10 therapy.”

On a form filed with the SEC on February 22, 2018, Nevro also stated in relevant part: “We are extending our novel and proprietary technologies into a series of product enhancements with the goal of improving the treatment of chronic pain.”

Finally, during an earnings call with investors also held on February 22, one of the Individual Defendants acknowledged Nevro’s “growing sales revenue,” saying in relevant part: “These results are driven by continued adoption and demand for HF10 globally and consistent execution by our sales team.”

What the Company failed to disclose, however, was that its SCS systems were not “novel” or “proprietary” because it had used “protected confidential and proprietary trade secrets and stolen documents” to develop them. The Company also failed to divulge that this alleged conduct caused it to be “vulnerable to increased litigation expenses and adverse legal and regulatory action,” thereby making its U.S. sales growth unsustainable.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$68.04
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$57.77
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

15.09%

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

NVRO Lawsuit, NVRO Class Action, Nevro

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 October 22, 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 Nevro 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:

NVRO Lawsuit NVRO Class Action Nevro

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.


Class Action Reports

AMPE Lawsuit Filed; Levi & Korsinsky Announces AMPE Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al 2:18-cv-07476 — On August 25, 2018, investors sued Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Ampio, AMPE or the Company) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the AMPE class action allege that they acquired Ampio stock at artificially inflated prices between December 14, 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 about the AMPE Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Ampio (NYSE: AMPE) bills itself as an “innovative drug discovery and development company” that engages in the development of medicinal treatments for inflammatory diseases, including but not limited to osteoarthritis.

The Company claims that its, “therapeutic product pipeline has been developed through more than two decades of study at leading hospital-based research centers.” It also claims that it has received more than 100 patents globally and that it has “hundreds more” pending.

Ampio’s contentions about one of its lead product candidates, Ampion, are at the crux of the August 25 lawsuit.

Summary of Facts

Ampio and two of its senior officers and 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 are accused of omitting truthful information about the status of a Phase 3 clinical trial for Ampion from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Ampio stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged after the market closed on August 7, 2018. That’s when the Company announced “updated business disclosures” in which it disclosed that the FDA had not approved one of its clinical trials for Ampion. It said in pertinent part, “Despite our belief that the APC-003-C trial design was based on FDA guidance and feedback consistent with FDA precedent for similar products (in intended use, in origin, and in regulatory pathway), which we reiterated with the FDA multiple times, the FDA does not consider the AP-003-C [sic] trial to be an adequate and well-controlled clinical trial.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the August 25 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 look forward to working closely with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as we prepare to submit our Biologics License Application (BLA) for Ampion.”

Then, on a “slide deck” attached to a form filed with the SEC on January 8, 2018, the Company said in pertinent part: “Ampion has successfully completed two pivotal Phase 3 trials for the signs and symptoms [sic] severe OAK.” (Osteoarthritis of the knee.)

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on March 6, 2018, the Company said in pertinent part: “When treated with Ampion, patients experienced significant improvement in a composite endpoint of pain and function compared to all severely diseased saline-treated patients in historical Ampion phase II clinical trials.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$2.86
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.61
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

78.67%

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

Ampe Class Action ampe lawsuit Ampio Lawsuit Ampio 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 October 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.

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 Ampion 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:

ampe lawsuit ampe class action ampio

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.


LOGM Lawsuit, LOGM Class Action, LogMeIn Lawsuit, LogMeIn Class Action

Class Action Reports

LOGM Lawsuit Filed; Levi & Korsinsky Announces LOGM Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

September 5, 2018

Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc., et al 2:18-cv-07285 — On August 20, 2018, investors sued LogMeIn, Inc. (“LogMeIn” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the LOGM class action allege that they acquired LogMeIn stock at artificially inflated prices between March 1, 2017 and July 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 any additional information on the LOGM Lawsuit, or to join the class action, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (NASDAQ:LOGM) provides products that simplify “how people interact with each other and the world around them.”

Specifically, LogMeIn provides “a portfolio of cloud-based communication and collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and support solutions.” Its products include GOTOMEETING, GOTOWEBINAR, OPENVOICE, GOTOASSIST and LASTPASS.

LogMeIn also claims that its platform supports 2 million daily users, 200 million customer engagements and five billion voice minutes per year.

The Company is incorporated in Delaware and based in Goleta, California.

Summary of Facts

LogMeIn 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 effect of LogMeIn’s business practices on some of its renewal rates from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused LogMeIn stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged during an earnings call held by the Company after the market closed on July 26, 2018. During the call, which the Company held to report is second quarter 2018 earnings, the Individual Defendants revealed that the Company “implemented strategies which negatively impacted renewal rates of certain of its services, including amongst its GoTo clients.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the August 20 complaint, the Company repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example on a form filed with the SEC on March 1, 2017, LogMeIn said in relevant part: “Customers have no obligation to renew their subscriptions after their subscription period expires, and these subscriptions may not be renewed on the same or on more profitable terms. As a result, our ability to grow depends in part on subscription renewals.”

Then, on another form filed with the SEC on February 20, 2018, the Company also said in pertinent part: “As we continue to integrate the GoTo Business, we will monitor and assess our renewal rate calculation and methodology to ensure that it is appropriate for the combined company.”

What the Company didn’t divulge until the July 26 earnings call was that some of its strategies following its 2017 merger with the GoTo business had completely backfired.

During the call, one of the Individual Defendants finally acknowledged the extent of the damage, saying in pertinent part: “As we move [sic] through the quarter, it became increasingly clear that some of the business practices we put in place following the merger were negatively impacting renewal rates. Aggressively moving customers from monthly to annual payments, changing business terms and conditions and barriers we created [sic] the auto renewal process all contributed to friction for our customers and made us harder to do business with.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$104.45
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$77.85
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

25.47%

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

LOGM Lawsuit LOGM 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 October 19, 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 LogMeIn 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:

LOGM Lawsuit LOGM 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.


LOGM Lawsuit, LOGM Class Action, LogMeIn Lawsuit, LogMeIn Class Action

Class Action Reports

NLSN Lawsuit Filed; Levi & Korsinsky Announces NLSN Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Gordon v. Nielsen Holdings plc et al 1:18-cv-07143 — On August 8, 2018, investors sued Nielsen Holdings plc (“Nielsen” or the “Company”) in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. The NLSN Lawsuit alleges that plaintiffs acquired Nielsen stock at artificially inflated prices between February 8, 2018 and July 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 NLSN Class Action Lawsuit, please inquire within. 

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Nielsen (NYSE:NLSN) bills itself as a “leading global performance management company.” As such, it says it gives its clients “a comprehensive understanding of what consumers watch and what they buy and how those choices intersect.”

To that end, the Company classifies its business operations as “Buy” and “Watch” segments.  According to the August 8 Complaint, the former supposedly provides “retail transactional measurement data, consumer behavior information and analytics primarily to businesses in the packaged-goods industry.” Specifically, the complaint states that the Company “track[s] billions of sales transactions per month in retail outlets globally and [its] data is used to measure their sales and market share.” Last year, this segment accounted for 49% of Nielsen’s revenue.

On the other hand, the Company’s “Watch” segment accounted for more than half (51%) of its revenue in 2017. According to the Complaint, this segment “provides viewership and listening data and analytics primarily to the media and advertising industries across the television, radio, print, online, digital, mobile viewing and listening platforms.” In this context, ratings are “the primary metrics used to determine the value of programming and advertising in the U.S. television advertising marketplace.”

Summary of Facts

Nielsen and two of its top officers and/or directors are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about Nielsen’s business practices and prospects during the Class period.

Specifically, they stand accused of omitting truthful information about the impact of certain regulations on Nielsen’s business and the Company’s reliance on “third-party data” from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Nielsen stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged on July 26 2018, when the Company revealed that its revenue and earnings for the second quarter failed to meet expectations. Among other things, the Company blamed the shortfall on “General Data Protection Regulation and changes in the consumer data privacy landscape.” The Company also said its “digital advertising ecosystem saw a disruption in the second quarter as large digital platforms made changes to their offerings to increase security for consumer data.”

 

 

A Closer Look…

As alleged in the August 8 Complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, during a February 8, 2018 conference call for analysts and investors, one of the Individual Defendants answered a question about General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) saying in pertinent part: “GDPR, we’ve been focused on this for some time. We have a big team that’s working on it. We’ve been out in front of it. We’re ready. We don’t expect to see any major impact on our business. We still – we’ll still have access to all the data that we’re going to need for our products. So yes, we’re in good shape.”

Then, on an April 26, 2018 conference call for analysts and investors, the Company “reiterated the first quarter 2018 financial results reported in the press release and assured investors that the Company was currently on track to meet year 2018 financial guidance, including $800 million in free cash flow, by the end of 2018.”

Finally, at an industry conference held May 31, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants stated in pertinent part: “For measurement, we still have access to all the data that we need for our measurement products, including our relationship with Facebook.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$29.57
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$22.11
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

25.23%

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

NLSN Lawsuit, NLSN 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 October 9, 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 Nielsen 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:

NLSN Class Action NLSN 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.


LOGM Lawsuit, LOGM Class Action, LogMeIn Lawsuit, LogMeIn Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces ORCL Lawsuit; Oracle Class Action Filed

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

City of Sunrise Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Oracle Corporation et al 3:18-cv-04844 — On August 10, 2018, investors sued Oracle Corporation (Oracle, ORCL, or the Company) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the Oracle class action (ORCL Class Action) allege that they acquired Oracle stock at artificially inflated prices between May 10, 2017 and March 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 ORCL Lawsuit, please contact us today.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Oracle (NYSE:ORCL) is a self-described “global provider of enterprise cloud computing.”

As such, it says it “provides industry-specific applications for running a customer’s core business, on premises or in the cloud, for more than two dozen industries.” Specifically, the Company claims it has 430,000 customers in 175 countries, and 25,000 partners.

Oracle also says that it employs more than 138,000 people, including 40,000 developers and engineers; 16,000 support and services specialists, who speak 29 languages; and 19,000 implementation consultants.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out on March 19, 2018, when Oracle revealed that its cloud revenue growth “had stagnated and forecasted significantly slower sales growth for its cloud business than its competitors.”

According to the August 10 complaint, in the wake of this revelation,  “market researchers and the media connected Oracle’s poor financial performance to its aggressive sales tactics.”

A closer look…

The August 10 complaint also alleges that the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release that was also filed on a form with the SEC on June 21, 2017, the Company reported that, “quarterly cloud revenues were up 58% to $1.4 billion.”

Then on a September 14, 2017, conference call with analysts and investors, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Customer adoption of our cloud products and services continue to be very, very strong.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on September 18, 2017, the Company referred to: “Higher growth of our cloud SaaS and cloud PaaS and IaaS revenues as customer preferences have pivoted to the Oracle Cloud for new deployments and as customers migrate to and expand with the Oracle Cloud for their existing on-premise workloads.” Oracle also attributed its cloud revenue growth to “increased… investments in and focus on the development, marketing and sale of our cloud-based applications, platform and infrastructure technologies.”

What Oracle failed to disclose, however, was that in reality it used “improper, coercive sales practices” to promote its cloud revenue growth.

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

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

 

9.5%

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

orcl lawsuit orcl class action oracle class action oracle 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 October 9, 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 Oracle 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:

ORCL Lawsuit ORCL Class Action Oracle Lawsuit Oracle 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.


LOGM Lawsuit, LOGM Class Action, LogMeIn Lawsuit, LogMeIn Class Action

Class Action Reports

TSLA Lawsuit Filed; Levi & Korsinsky Announces Tesla Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Isaacs v. Tesla, Inc. et al 3:18-cv-04865 — On August 10, 2018, investors sued Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla” or the “Company”) in United States District court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Plaintiffs in the Tesla class action (TSLA Class Action) allege that they acquired Tesla stock at artificially inflated prices between August 7, 2018, and August 8, 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 TSLA Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) has been in business since 2003, when a group of engineers launched it in order to prove that “people didn’t need to compromise to drive electric – that electric vehicles can be better, quicker and more fun to drive than gasoline cars.”

Today, the Company produces several all-electric vehicles including the Model S and the Model X. In the last couple of years it has also introduced the Model 3 and the Tesla Semi. Along with the expansion of its product line, the Company says its production plan is “also set to increase to a rate of 500,000 vehicles a year” by this year.

In addition to making electric vehicles, the Company says it is dedicated to creating an “an entire sustainable energy ecosystem.” To this end, it also makes “a unique set of energy solutions…enabling homeowners, businesses, and utilities to manage renewable energy generation, storage, and consumption.”

Summary of Facts

Tesla and its CEO and chairman, Elon Musk, now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about Tesla’s business prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of using social media (Twitter) to make false and misleading statements about taking the Company “private” and securing the required funds. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Tesla stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

The truth came out in an article published by Bloomberg after the market closed on August 8, 2018. In it, Bloomberg disclosed that, “securities regulators have inquired with Tesla about Defendant Musk’s Tweets.” According to the report, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) specifically asked “whether Defendant Musk’s unusual announcement on Tuesday was ‘factual,’” and “why the disclosure was made on Twitter rather than a regulatory filing.”

Another article published by Bloomberg two days later also questioned whether the funding needed to take the Company private could be secured, much less actually secured, as Musk claimed.

A closer look…

As alleged in the August 10 complaint, the Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a Tweet posted at approximately 12:48 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on August 7, Musk said in pertinent part: “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.”

Then, in another Tweet posted less than an hour later, Musk said in relevant part: “I don’t have a controlling vote now & wouldn’t expect any shareholder to have one if we go private. I won’t be selling in either scenario.”

In yet another Tweet posted at 3:36 p.m., Musk stated: “Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.”

The next day, “several Company directors” issued a statement which said in relevant part: “Last week, Elon opened a discussion with the board about taking the company private, this included discussion as to how being private could better serve Tesla’s long-term interests, and also addressed the funding for this to occur.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$370.34
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$17.89
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

4.83%

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

Tesla Class Action Lawsuit TSLA 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 October 9, 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 Tesla 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:

impinj class Action impinj lawsuit pi lawsuit pi 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.


LOGM Lawsuit, LOGM Class Action, LogMeIn Lawsuit, LogMeIn Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Impinj Lawsuit – Impinj Class Action Filed

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

September 4, 2018

Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al 2:18-cv-06765 — On August 7, 2018, investors sued Impinj, Inc. (Impinj, PI, or the Company) in United States District Court, Central District of California. The Impinj class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Impinj stock at artificially inflated prices between May 7, 2018 and August 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 Impinj Lawsuit, please contact us today.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ:PI) bills itself as “a leading provider of RAIN RFID solutions.”

As such, it says it helps businesses around the world “increase sales, improve efficiencies, and deliver compelling experiences.” Specifically, it says its platform “delivers an item’s identity, location, and authenticity—what we call Item Intelligence—to business and consumer applications.” In all, Impinj claims it has “connected” more than 25 billion items through this technology.

Based in Seattle, the IMPINJ says that it has partners in 60 countries. Its customers include Coca-Cola, Cisco and Johnson Controls.

Summary of Facts

Impinj and two of its senior officers (the Individual Defendants) are 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 conduct resulting in a complaint and investigation; and the efficacy of its internal and financial controls from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Impinj stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on August 2, 2018. That’s when the Company announced that it was “delaying the release of its second quarter 2018 results” due to an independent, ongoing investigation conducted by its Audit Committee based on a complaint made by a former employee.

A closer look…

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

For example, in a press release issued May 7, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Based on team execution, enhanced partner inventory visibility and positive booking trends, we believe we are on track to make the first half of 2018 the turning point for our business.”

The next day, the Company filed a form with the SEC that had been signed by one of the Individual Defendants and “reaffirmed the financial results” Impinj announced in the press release.

The same form included signed certifications pursuant to federal law in which the Individual Defendants affirmed the truthfulness and accuracy of the information included therein. By signing the certifications, they also attested to the efficacy and status of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$21.99
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$18.97
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

13.73%

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

 impinj class Action impinj lawsuit pi lawsuit pi 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 October 9, 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 Impinj 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:

impinj class Action impinj lawsuit pi lawsuit pi 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.


Zion Lawsuit, ZN Lawsuit, ZN Class Action, Zion Class Action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces ZN Lawsuit – Zion Class Action Filed

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Peak v. Zion Oil & Gas Inc. et al 3:18-cv-2067 — On August 9, 2018, investors sued Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. (Zion, ZN, or the Company) in United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Plaintiffs in the ZN class action allege that they acquired Zion stock at artificially inflated prices between March 12, 2018 and July 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 on the ZN Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Zion (NASDAQ:ZN) is a Delaware corporation founded in 2000 that explores for oil and gas onshore in Israel.  As such, it “currently holds approximately 99,000 acres of land in Israel, all on the Megiddo-Jezreel License.”

Although it has been in business for less than 20 years, Zion’s backstory dates to 1983, when its founder and chairman became “inspired and dedicated to finding gas and oil in Israel” during a visit. His interest in doing so prompted him to initiate the process that resulted in the creation of the so-called “Joseph Project.” and he started the process that led to the Joseph Project. “

“During the next 17 years he made numerous trips to Israel, hired oil and gas consultants in Israel and Texas, met with Israeli government officials, made direct investments with local exploration companies, and assisted Israeli exploration companies in raising money for oil and gas exploration in Israel,” Zion’s website states.

Although the Company’s mission is “biblically inspired,” Zion says, “The actions taken by the Zion management as it actively explores for oil and gas in Israel, are based on modern science and good business practice.”

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of making false or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose information about Zion’s status as the potential or actual subject of an SEC investigation. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Zion stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on July 11, 2018, when the Company filed a current report with the SEC. In it, Zion disclosed that on June l21, 2018, it had received “a subpoena to produce documents from the Fort Worth office of the Securities and Exchange Commission [“SEC”] informing Zion of the existence of a non-public, fact-finding inquiry into the Company.” Zion also said that its “response to the subpoena will necessarily entail significant costs and management’s attention.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the August 9 complaint, Zion and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly denied during the Class Period that the Company was a potential or actual subject of an SEC investigation.

For example, in response to a March 26, 2018 Twitter post inferring that the Company was the subject of an SEC investigation, the Company stated the following in a Tweet the next day: “There is no investigation. Merely indicators of a routine FINRA questionnaire that’s standard after a steep rise of our stock recently.”

Then, following a report that the SEC was investigating the Company, Zion issued the following statement on Twitter on May 30, 2018: “There is no SEC investigation into Zion Oil & Gas, Inc.” In the same Tweet, Zion advised investors to “just ignore such distortions.”

Finally, in a second Tweet that day, the Company told investors to “Arm yourself with good information and how to spot false rumors,” and included a link to an article on Investopedia called “Short and Distort: Bear Market Stock Manipulation.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$4.00
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$3.56
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

11%

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

 ZN Lawsuit ZN Class Action Zion Lawsuit Zion 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 October 9, 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 Zion 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:
Zn Class Action ZN Lawsuit Zion Class Action Zion 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.


Zion Lawsuit, ZN Lawsuit, ZN Class Action, Zion Class Action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

SBGI Lawsuit: Levi & Korsinsky Announces SBGI Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

August 20, 2018

Komito v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. et al 1:18-cv-02445-CCB — On August 9, 2018, investors sued Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (“Sinclair” or the “Company”) in United States District Court For The District of Maryland. Plaintiffs in the SBGI class action allege that they acquired Sinclair stock at artificially inflated prices between February 22, 2017 and July 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 about the SBGI lawsuit, please contact us today.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Sinclair (NASDAQ: SBGI) is  “one of the largest and most diversified television broadcasting companies” in the United States.

As such it owns “a multicast network, four radio stations and a cable network.”  In all it has 192 TV stations and 611 channels in 89 U.S. markets.

Sinclair’s history dates to 1986, when family patriarch Julian Sinclair Smith and his four sons (David, Fred, Duncan and Rob) consolidated the operations of what were then three independent UHF television stations in Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Columbus under Sinclair, and appointed their long-term partner, Robert “Bob” Simmons as the Company’s first President and CEO.

In the following decade, the Company experienced tremendous growth, expanding from three television stations to 59, thereby establishing itself as the largest broadcaster in the country.

Summary of Facts

Sinclair 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 stand accused of omitting truthful information about certain transactions, its compliance with relevant FCC rules and regulations, and related matters from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Sinclair stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged on July 16, 2018, when “news reports disclosed that FCC Chairman Ajt Pai was circulating a draft Hearing Designation Order (‘HDO”) sending the Sinclair/Tribune deal to a hearing before the FCC’s administrative law judge, a process widely considered to be a death sentence for merger approvals.”

According to the August 9 complaint, the “draft HDO, seen by Reuters on July 16, 2018, stated that Chairman Pai had ‘serious concerns’ about the proposed merger, finding that ‘Sinclair’s actions here potentially involve deception.’”

With a unanimous vote after the market closed on July 18, 2018, the FCC sent the proposed merger to a hearing in spite of the Company’s attempt to convince it not to do so.

A closer look…

As alleged in the August 9 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, when responding to a question about the potential for any “transformative” merger deals during an earnings call with investors on February 22, 2017, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “So we have to wait and see what will happen, but we think it will actually happen fairly quickly here and we’ll start to see some movement this year. And if that happens, I do expect transformative deals to come on the heels of that.”

In a May 8, 2017 press release announcing the Company’s merger with Tribune, the Company said in pertinent part: “In order to comply with FCC ownership requirements and antitrust regulations, Sinclair may sell certain stations in market where it currently owns stations. Such divestitures will be determined through the regulatory process.”

Then on a Registration Statement in connection with the merger that was filed with the SEC on July 3, 2017, Sinclair said in relevant part: “Sinclair also agreed, subject to the terms of the agreement, to use reasonable best efforts to take all actions to avoid or eliminate any impediment that may be asserted by a governmental authority with respect to the transactions…”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$27.40
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$26.30
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

4.01%

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 October 9, 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 Sinclair 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:

SBGI Class Action SBGI 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.


Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces the HMNY Class Action Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Chang v. Helios Matheson Analytics, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-06965 — On August 2, 2018, investors sued Helios Matheson Analytics, Inc. (Helios, HMNY, or the Company) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The HMNY Lawsuit alleges that plaintiffs acquired Helios stock at artificially inflated prices between August 15, 2017 and July 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 HMNY Class Action, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website,  Helios (NASDAQ:HMNY)  is “a Big Data company that helps global enterprises make informed decisions by providing insights into social phenomena.”

As such, it provides “information technology, services and solutions” including numerous “technology platforms” to its clients in the financial sector, healthcare, retail, education sector and government sector.

The Company is incorporated in Delaware and its main office is located in New York City. According to the August 2 complaint, the Company had more than 82.6 million shares of common stock outstanding as of May 11, 2018.

Summary of Facts

Helios 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 various issues related to its acquisition of a “major stake” in MoviePass, Inc. (“MoviePass”) from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Helios stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on July 27, 2018, when the Company filed a form with the SEC announcing that it had “Issued a demand note in the principal amount of $6.2 million because it was unable to make required payments to its merchants and fulfillment processors leading to a service interruption.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the August 2 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 when the Class Period began, the Company said in pertinent part: “The MoviePass app enables subscribers to see unlimited movies in theaters with no blackout dates; no contracts; just a low flat $9.95 monthly fee.”

In another press release issued September 15, 2017, Helios also said in pertinent part: “Helios and Matheson Analytics believes its technology stock combined with the MoviePass business model will transform the movie going experience and create great value for both companies.”

Then, on October 24, 2017, Helios issued yet another press release in which it stated in pertinent part: “The continued growth trajectory exceeded MoviePass’ initial projections, and now MoviePass projects that it will acquire at least 3.1 million additional paying subscribers through August 18, 2018, exceeding its previous estimate of 2.5 million subscribers.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$6.83
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$2.00
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

70.72%

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 October 1, 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 Helios 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:

HMNY Lawsuit HMNY 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.


Class Action Reports

GDS Lawsuit: Levi & Korsinsky Announces GDS Holdings Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Allison v. GDS Holdings Limited, et al 1:18-cv-06960 — On August 2, 2018, investors sued GDS Holdings Limited (GDS or the Company) In United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired GDS American Depositary Shares (ADS) at artificially inflated prices between November 2, 2016 and July 31, 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 GDS Lawsuit, please click here.

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website the Company (NASDAQ: GDS) is a “a leading developer and operator of high performance data centers in China.” As such, it says it has roughly 500 customers including “large Internet companies, financial institutions, telecommunications and IT service providers, and large domestic private sector and multinational corporations.”

GDS also says its facilities are “strategically located in China’s primary economic hubs where demand for high performance data center services is concentrated,” and that its data centers feature “large net floor area, high power capacity, density and efficiency, and multiple redundancy across all critical systems.”

As of last November, the Company says, it had “an aggregate net floor area over 101,000 sqm in service and an aggregate net floor area over 24,000 sqm under construction.”

Summary of Facts

GDS 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 during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about its utilization and occupancy rates; its use of suspect capital and debt raisings; certain acquisitions; and certain accounting practices from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused the Company’s ADS to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a report published by Blue Orca on July 31, 2018. In it, Blue Orca revealed that GDS had allegedly engaged in fraud by overstating certain metrics for one of its “flagship data centers;’ by “inflating the purchase price of undisclosed related party acquisitions;” through questionable use of equity and debt raising; and through use of questionable accounting practices.

A closer look…

As alleged in the August 2 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false or misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a Prospectus filed with the SEC on November 2, 2016, the Company said in pertinent part: “Due to the lengthy time period required to build data centers and the long-term nature of these investments, if we overestimate market demand for data center resources, our utilization rates, which is the ratio of area utilized to area in service would be reduced, which would adversely affect our results of operations. Our revenue growth data depends on our ability to secure commitment s for our data center services.”

Then, in its 2016 Annual Report, filed with the SEC on April 19, 2017, GDS stated in pertinent part: “Our substantial level of indebtedness could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations, expose us to interest rate risk to the extent of our variable rate debt and prevent us from meeting our obligations under our indebtedness.”

Finally, in its 2017 Annual Report, which was filed with the SEC on March 29, 2018, GDS said in relevant part: “We recently received the Registration Certificate of the Filing of Foreign Debt Borrowed by Enterprises, or the Foreign Debt Registration Certificate, issued by the National Development and Reform Commission, or the NDRC, permitting us to issue foreign currency denominated bonds of up to US$300 million…”

On the same report, the Company claimed that its Guangshou 1 data center [“GZI”] had a 90% utilization rate and a 100% commitment rate.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on GDS ADS Price and Market Capitalization

Closing ADS price prior to disclosures:

 

$35.25
Closing ADS price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$21.83
One ADS price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

38.07%

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 October 1, 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 GDS 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:

GDS Lawsuit GDS Holdings Class Action levi & Korsinsky

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.


VUZI Lawsuit Vuzix Class Action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

VUZI Lawsuit; Vuzix Class Action Litigation Report/Update

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

August 2, 2018

McDonel v. Vuzix Corporation et al 1:18-cv-06656 – On July 24, 2018, investors sued Vuzix Corporation (Vuzix, VUZI, or the Company) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the Vuzix class action allege that they either acquired Vuzix stock at artificially inflated prices between November 9, 2017 and March 20, 2018 (“the Class Period”) or in connection with the Company’s secondary public offering (“SPO”) in January 2018. 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 VUZI Lawsuit, please inquire within.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: VUZI) has been in business since 1997 and bills itself as “a leading supplier of Smart-Glasses and Augmented Reality (AR) technologies and products for the consumer and enterprise markets.”

As such, it makes “personal display and wearable computing devices that offer users a portable high quality viewing experience, provide solutions for mobility, wearable displays and virtual and augmented reality.” It also designs, markets and sells these products.

On its website, Vuzix claims it holds more than 60 patents and has more than 40 that are pending.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth emerged in a series of posts published by MOX Reports in March 2018. In them, MOX Reports accused the Company of wrongfully using “certain stock promotion tactics to boost the Vuzix share price, and then offered shares at $10 per share.” It said in pertinent part: “Vuzix recently used an undisclosed stock promotion involving dozens of mainstream media outlets to artificially inflate the share price and volume, and then raise $30 million.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the July 24 complaint, Vuzix repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued on November 9, 2017, Vuzix discussed its financial results for the third quarter of 2017. It stated in relevant part: “Recognized $266,687 of engineering services revenues during the third quarter on our enterprise smart glasses development project with Toshiba. The remaining development work associated with Toshiba is expected to be completed in the fourth quarter, which will result in approximately $221,000 of revenue in the fourth quarter and the delivery of PVT devices. Vuzix expects to move this new product into volume production for Toshiba in early 2018.”

On the same day, the Company filed a form with the SEC in which it reiterated the same points it made in the press release.

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on March 6, 2018, the Company said in relevant part: “The Vuzix Blade received 4 innovation awards at CES and was named ‘Best of CES’ by several notable media firms including TIME, Rolling Stone, CNET, Fox News, Tom’s Guide and TechRadar.”

According to the MOX reports, however: “The information contained in the articles and product reviews was flat out wrong, but was then repeatedly rebroadcast by Vuzix (esp. Margolis) in order to inflate the stock. Margolis made heavy use of social media, adding the $VUZI ticker next to the sponsored articles.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$7.65
Closing stock price following disclosures:

 

$5.95
Three-day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

22.22%

 

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 September 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.

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 Vuzix 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:

VUZI Lawsuit Vuzix Class Action Levi & Korsinsky

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


VUZI Lawsuit Vuzix Class Action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

RMTI Lawsuit Filed; Rockwell Medical Class Action Litigation Report

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Too v. Rockwell Medical Inc., et al 1:18-cv-04253 – On July 27, 2018, investors sued Rockwell Medical Inc. (Rockwell, RMTI, or the Company) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The Rockwell Medical class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Rockwell stock at artificially inflated prices between March 16, 2018 and June 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 about the RMTI Lawsuit, please read the following report. We encourage reaching out to us with any questions or concerns as well.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

As an “integrated biopharmaceutical company,” Rockwell (NASDAQ: RMTI) focuses finding solutions for patients suffering from end-stage renal and chronic kidney diseases both in the United States and also globally.

Founded in 1995, the Company has been trading on the NASDAQ since 1998. By 2001, Rockwell had two manufacturing facilities in Michigan and Texas. It expanded its operations further by opening another production facility in South Carolina in 2005. The Company also reached $25 million in revenue that year, and surpassed $50 million revenue three years later.

Summary of Facts

Rockwell and two of its current and former officers and/or directors 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 status of its proposal for separate reimbursement for one of its products, efficacy of its internal controls over financial reporting, and its CEO’s conduct from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Rockwell stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired between May 10, 2018 and June 27, 2018, when the Company filed a form with the SEC announcing the resignation of its auditors, effective immediately.

The June 27 announcement also included material related to the Company’s pursuit of separate reimbursement for Triferic from the CMS. Specifically, the material revealed that CMS did not plan to approve separate reimbursement for the medication, which was contrary to what the Company led its auditors to believe.

A closer look…

As alleged in the July 27 complaint, the Company repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC on March 15, 2018, the Company said in pertinent part: “While we cannot predict the outcome or timing of the CMS review, we anticipate that Triferic will receive separate reimbursement as a result of our extensive efforts in working with policy makers, Congress and stakeholders within the dialysis industry.”

On the same form, the Company also said, “We believe Triferic is a new innovative therapy, and we are seeking separate reimbursement for Triferic.”

Then, on another form filed with the SEC on May 10, 2018, the Company said in relevant part: “”We have submitted information to CMS that highlights the improved clinical benefits that Triferic provides to patients, as well as the significant cost savings Triferic delivers to both Medicare and dialysis providers. We cannot predict the outcome or timing of CMS’s process and there can be no assurance of it, or when we might receive separate reimbursement for Triferic from CMS.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$5.26
Closing stock price two trading days after disclosures:

 

$4.41
Two day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

16.16%

 

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 September 25, 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 Rockwell 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:

RMTI Class Action RMTI Lawsuit Rockwell Medical Lawsuit

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


DRII Lawsuit DRII Class Action Levi & Korsinsky Diamond Resorts

Class Action Reports

DRII Lawsuit Filed; DRII Class Action Securities Report

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund v. Diamond Resorts International, Inc. 2:18-cv-01355 On July 23, 2018, shareholders sued Diamond Resorts International, Inc. (Diamond, DRII, or the Company) in United States District Court, District of Nevada. Plaintiffs in the DRII class action allege that they tendered their Diamond Resorts stock at an unfair price between July 14 2016, and September 1, 2016. They are now seeking compensation for financial losses stemming from the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the DRII Lawsuit, please read below and feel free to reach out to us with any questions or concerns.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: DRII) is a self-proclaimed, “global leader in the hospitality and vacation ownership industries, with a worldwide network.” As such it has more than 400 “vacation destinations” in more than 30 countries around the world and sells “vacation ownership points,” which allow members to book rooms at its properties.

Diamond was founded in 2007 and “went public” five years later. It was a publicly held company until Apollo acquired it on September 2, 2016. Apollo has owned and controlled Diamond and all of its affiliates since then.

Summary of Facts

Diamond and nine of its current and former officers and directors now stand accused of deceiving shareholders by lying or withholding critical information related to certain transactions during the time in question.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information from a Recommendation Statement filed with the SEC. They are also accused of withholding information about offers made to certain Diamond board members “during the pendency of the Tender Offer.” By doing so, they allegedly enticed shareholders to tender their shares at an unfair price.

The truth emerged in a series of events that began on August 31, 2016, with internal confirmation that Apollo had hired the chairman of Diamond’s board of directors as a consultant, and September 2, 2016, when Apollo officially acquired the Company.

A closer look…

According to the July 23 complaint, private equity firm Apollo Global Management LLC in January 2016 “approached Diamond to discuss a potential take-private transaction in which Diamond, then a publicly-traded company, would be converted into a private company.”

Following a series of events, on June 23, 3016, Apollo submitted what turned out to be the winning bid for the acquisition of Diamond at $30.25 per share.

Then on June 26, 2016, the Diamond board voted to approve Apollo’s acquisition of the Company, even though the chairman abstained.

Then, on July 14, 2016, the defendants allegedly “caused a materially incomplete and misleading Recommendation Statement to be filed with the SEC.” In it, they “recommended that shareholders tender their shares pursuant to the Tender Offer, stating that the $30.25 offer price was fair and advisable.”

What they failed to disclose in the statement, however, was that “the Board’s Chairman had abstained from voting on the sale of Diamond for reasons that directly contradicted the Board’s recommendation to the stockholder.”

Furthermore, the defendants also filed  “materially incomplete and misleading Amendments to the Schedule 14D-9 dated August 9, 2016, and September 1, 2016” with the SEC. In them, they failed to disclose that Apollo had offered Diamond’s chairman “additional consideration for the deal in the form of a consulting agreement by Apollo;” and that “Apollo had offered financial incentives in the form of consulting agreements or co-investment opportunities” to Diamond’s vice-chairman and CEO.

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 September 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.

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 Diamond common stock using court approved loss calculations.

 

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:

DRII Lawsuit DRII Class Action

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.

 


FB Lawsuit Facebook Class Action Levi & Korsinsky LLP

Class Action Reports

FB Lawsuit Filed; Facebook Class Action Securities Report

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Kacouris v. Facebook Inc. et al 1:18-cv-06765 – On July 27, 2018, investors sued Facebook, Inc. (Facebook, FB, or the Company) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the Facebook class action allege that they acquired Facebook stock at artificially inflated prices between April 25, 2018 and July 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 FB Lawsuit, please read below and contact us with any questions or concerns.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: FB) was founded in 2004 and operates a social media platform that allows users to “stay connected with friends and family, to discover what’s going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them.”

According to its corporate website, Facebook had 1.47 billion daily active users on Facebook on average for June 2018. It also had 2.23 billion monthly active users on Facebook as of June 30, 2018.

Facebook employed 30,275 people in 13 U.S. cities and 43 cities around the world by the end of June 2018.

Summary of Facts

Facebook 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 revenue growth and a decrease in active users from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Facebook stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out when Facebook announced its financial and operating results for the second quarter of 2018 after the market closed on July 25, 2108. The Company then shared “revenues and numbers of daily and monthly active users that fell short of market expectations.”

During a conference call held to discuss the Company’s second quarter results that day, one of the Individual Defendants said Facebook “expected its revenue growth to slow and its operating margins to fall” due to detrimental currency conditions and “plan[s] to grow and promote certain engaging experiences like Stories that currently have lower levels of monetization.”

In articles published the next day (July 26, 2018) the mainstream media reported that the Company lost more than $119 billion in value “in one day,” and that the Company’s revelations, “alarmed” investors.

A closer look…

As alleged in the July 27 complaint, the Company repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC on April 25, 2018, Facebook’s founder and CEO said in pertinent part: “Despite facing important challenges, our community and business are off to a strong start in 2018.”

On another form filed with the SEC on April 26, 2018, the Company reiterated much of the same information and included certifications pursuant to federal law that were signed by the Individual Defendants. These certifications stated, “the information contained in the [Q! 2018 10-Q] fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$217.50
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$176.26
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

18.96%

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 September 25, 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 Facebook 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:

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.

 


Facebook Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

FPI Lawsuit Commences – Farmland Partners Class Action Report

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

July 30, 2018

Kachmar v. Farmland Partners, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-01771 – On July 11, 2018, investors sued Farmland Partners, Inc. (Farmland Partners, FPI, or the Company) in United States District Court For The District of Colorado. Plaintiffs in the Farmland Partners Class Action Lawsuit (FPI Lawsuit) allege that they acquired Farmland Partners stock at artificially inflated prices between May 9, 2017, and July 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 Farmland Partners Lawsuit, please reach out to us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Farmland Partners (NYSE:FPI) is a self-described “internally managed, publicly traded real estate company that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality farmland throughout North America addressing the global demand for food, feed, fiber and fuel.”

According to its website, the Company owned or had under contract, more than 166,000 acres in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia as of May 9, 2018. More than 125 tenant farmers grow more than 30 commercial crops on those Farmland properties.

Summary of Facts

Farmland Partners 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 its revenue from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Farmland Partners stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged on July 11, 2018, when Rota Fortune published online report in which it claimed the Company “artificially increased revenues by ‘making loans to related-party tenants who round-trip the cash back to FPI as rent’” The report also alleged that “310% of Farmland’s 2017 earnings could be fabricated.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the July 11 complaint, Farmland Partners 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: “The substantial quarter-over-quarter revenue increase is indicative of the growth we achieved in the last twelve months.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on July 20, 2017, the Company again stated in pertinent part: “We expect to recognize the majority of our participating revenue, with a positive impact on AFFO, in the second half of the year.”

Finally, on yet another form filed with the SEC on May 9, 2018, the Company said in relevant part: “The benefits of scale are clearly showing up in our first quarter’s financial results. We expect such benefits to increase even further as we progress through the year, largely due to the concentration of revenue recognition in the fourth quarter for some of our properties.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Farmland Partners’ Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$8.65
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$5.28
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

38.96%

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 September 10, 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 Farmland Partners 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:

FPI Lawsuit Class Action Levi & Korsinsky

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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 FPI Lawsuit or other institutional services we provide, please contact us.

 


Facebook Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

MD Lawsuit Announced – Mednax Class Action Lawsuit Report

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Cambridge Retirement System v. Mednax, Inc. et al 0:18-cv-61572-WPD — On July 10, 2018, investors sued Mednax, Inc. (Mednax, MD, or the Company) in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. The Mednax lawsuit alleges that plaintiffs acquired Mednax stock at artificially inflated prices between February 4, 2016 and July 27, 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 MD Lawsuit, please contact us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Mednax (NYSE: MD) bills itself as a “national medical group that comprises the nation’s leading providers of neonatal, anesthesia, maternal-fetal and pediatric medical and surgical subspecialty services.”

Founded in 1979, the Company provides “administration services” for the doctors in the physician practice groups it acquires. Specifically, it handles “ billing patients and third-party payors for services rendered by the affiliated physicians.” In return, the doctors in practice groups obtained by the Company sign limited “employment contracts” providing for “a base salary and incentive bonuses.”

According to the July 10 complaint, the Company “added 13 physician groups through acquisitions” in 2016. Of those, eight were anesthesiology practices, which brought the total number of affiliated anesthesiologists to 1,390 at year’s end.

Summary of Facts

Mednax and two of its officers and/or directors 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 the viability of Mednax’s business model 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 began to emerge on April 20, 2017, when the Company announced “negative financial results for the first quarter of 2017, including missing earnings.”

Then, July 28, 2017 conference call held to discuss its second quarter earnings, Mednax announced that it “failed to complete any acquisitions of anesthesiologist practices during the quarter.” During the same call, the Company also revealed that, “any future anesthesiologist acquisitions were unlikely.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the July 10 complaint, Mednax 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 referenced its revenue growth, stating that it was “driven primarily by contributions from acquisitions completed since October 2014.”

During a February 4, 2016, conference call held to discuss the Company’s earnings for the fourth quarter of 2015, one of the Individual Defendants described the Company as a “preferred partner” for anesthesiologists and said in relevant part: ‘Based on our pipeline, I believe that we will continue to be one of the most active acquirers in this specialty at reasonable rates.”

Then, at a healthcare conference held on June 7, 2016, one of the Individual Defendants also stated in pertinent part: “Our pipeline is very robust… there will be more to come, because we do have plenty in the pipeline as well as, even with these acquisition activities, we have roughly about 2 times leverage ratio.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on February 10, 2017, the Company stated in relevant part: “We continue to seek to expand our operations by acquiring established physician practices in our specialties which include neonatology, anesthesiology, maternal-fetal medicine and pediatric cardiology.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$56.49
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$47.73
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

15.51%

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 September 10, 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 Mednax 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:

Mednax Lawsuit MD Levi & Korsinsky

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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 Mednax Lawsuit or other institutional services we provide, please contact us.


Facebook Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

FIZZ Lawsuit Underway: Fizz Class Action Report

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

July 27, 2018

Luczak v. National Beverage Corp. et al 0:18-cv-61631-KMM — On July 17, 2018, investors sued National Beverage Corp. (National Beverage, FIZZ, or the Company) in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. Plaintiffs in the FIZZ class action allege that they acquired National Beverage stock at artificially inflated prices between July 17, 2014 and July 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 information on the FIZZ lawsuit, please continue reading, and reach out to us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, National Beverage (NASDAQ: FIZZ) is an “acknowledged leader” in the creation, development and sales of soft drinks and related products.

As such, the Company has 12 manufacturing facilities in the United States and offers “the widest selection of flavored soft drinks, juices, sparkling waters, energy drinks and nutritionally–enhanced waters.” Consumers can find its products in supermarkets, national chains, convenience stores, restaurants, hospitals, schools, wholesale clubs, and other retail establishments.

Established as a holding company for its subsidiaries, National Beverage Corp. was incorporated in Delaware in 1985 and has been trading as a public company on the NASDAQ since 1991.

Summary of Facts

National Beverage and two of its senior executives (the “Individual Defendants”) are accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the Company’s certain “proprietary techniques,” and its CEO’s conduct from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused National Beverage stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that transpired between December 8, 2017, when concerned analysts assigned “underperforming,” and “sell” classifications to National Beverage stock, and July 3, 2018.   Of note in this context is an exchange of letters between the SEC and the Company regarding the Company’s prior statements about its “VPO and VPC metrics,” and an ensuing article published by the Wall Street Journal on June 26, 2018. The article revealed that the Company “declined to provide the requested figures.”

Then on July 3, the Wall Street Journal published another article revealing alleged sexual misconduct by the Company’s CEO (an Individual Defendant) between 2014 and 2016.

A closer look…

As alleged in the July 17 complaint, the Company repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC when the Class Period began, the Company referred to its Code of Ethics, which states in relevant part: “Any type of harassment, whether of a racial, sexual, ethnic or other nature, is absolutely prohibited.”

National Beverage also referred to its Code of Ethics in SEC filings on three other occasions during the Class Period.

Then, in a press release issued on May 4, 2017, the Company stated that it “employs methods that no other company does in this area – VPO (velocity per outlet) and VPC (velocity per capita).” It also claimed that it “utilize[s] two proprietary technique to magnify these measures and this creates growth never before thought possible.”

In another press release issued the next day, National Beverage stated that “[o]ur impressive VPO calculator… is flashing solid green numbers as we bring FY2017 to a close.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$109.94
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$107.04
Two day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

2.64%

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 September 17, 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 National Beverage 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:

FIZZ Lawsuit Fizz Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


Facebook Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

PRTA Lawsuit Commences: Prothena Class Action Report

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

On July 16, 2018, investors sued Prothena Corporation, plc (Prothena, PRTA, or the Company) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the Prothena class action allege that they acquired Prothena stock at artificially inflated prices between October 15, 2015 and April 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 about the PRTA lawsuit, please continue on below:

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: PRTA) describes itself as a “a global biotechnology company seeking to fundamentally alter the course of progressive diseases.” As such, it says it is “focused on the discovery and development of novel therapies in the neuroscience category.”

According to its website, the Company’s history can be traced to a company called Athena Neurosciences, which was founded in 1986. Elan Corporation plc acquired Athena in1996, assumed its “discovery and development activities.” Then, in December 2012, Prothena established its current identity by separating from Elan.

Today, the Company says, it “focuses on what we do best – developing immunotherapy approaches that interact in novel ways with proteins that are involved in amyloid or cell adhesion diseases.”

Summary of Facts

Prothena and three of its current and 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 and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the Company’s lead product candidate for possible use in the treatment of amyloid light chain amyloidosis (“AL amyloidosis”) from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Prothena stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events between June 29, 2017 and April 23, 2018. These included the publication of two reports by different investment research firms questioning the Company’s claims about its lead product candidate on June 29, 2017 and November 8, 2017; and the Company’s announcement on February 2, 2018 that its chief medical officer had resigned.

Before the market opened on April 23, 2018, Prothena shocked everyone by announcing that it would end all development of its lead product candidate for the treatment of AL amyloidosis after data from one of its clinical trials “failed to reach either its primary or secondary endpoints.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the July 16 complaint, the Company repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued February 18, 2016, the Company discussed the “’encouraging’ clinical results” from a clinical trial for its lead product candidate for potential treatment of AL amyloidosis, stating that: “NEOD001 Phase1/2 patients ‘achieved more than double the cardiac and renal biomarker responses when compared to historical data in patients treated off-label standard of care.”

In another press release issued on July 5, 2016, the Company announced new data from its “expanded Phase 1/2 clinical trial of NEOD001.” Specifically, it stated that the new Phase 1/2 data showed ‘best response rates of 53% and 63%’ in cardiac and renal-evaluable patients, which were ‘consistent with those previously reported.’”

Then, at a healthcare conference on September 12, 2016, one of the Individual Defendants stated in pertinent part: “We continue to see very consistent results from our dose escalation versus our expansion, and so that was very exciting for us.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$36.84
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$11.50
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

69%

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 September 17, 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 Prothena 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:

PRTA Lawsuit Prothena Class Action

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


Facebook Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

MRCY Lawsuit Filed – Mercury Systems Class Action Litigation Report

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

July 19, 2018

On July 10, investors sued Mercury Systems, Inc. (“Mercury,” “MRCY,” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs in the Mercury Systems Class Action Lawsuit allege that they acquired Mercury stock at artificially inflated prices between October 24, 2017 and April 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 about the MRCY Lawsuit, please contact us at your earliest convenience.

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: MRCY) is a “commercial provider of defense and intelligence, secure sensor and safety critical processing subsystems for defense prime contractors.”

Founded in 1981, the Company is based in Andover, Massachusetts and has offices/facilities throughout the United States. It also has a presence in Canada, Switzerland, the U.K., France, Spain and Japan. According to its website, Mercury also has more than 1,000 employees and generated more than $400 million in revenue in FY 2017.

Summary of Facts

Mercury and two of its current and former senior officers (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 certain business decisions and related issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Mercury 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 24, 2018. In it Mercury revealed a drastic change in t its free cash flow in the third quarter of FY 2018 compared to the same period for the prior fiscal year. It said in pertinent part: “Free cash flow, defined as cash flow from operating activities les capital expenditures, was a net outflow of $(2.6) million in the third quarter of fiscal 2018, compared to a net inflow of $11.9 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2017. The lower cash flow in the quarter was primarily a result of our continued investment in the business as we insource our manufacturing and integrate our acquisitions.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the July 10 complaint, the Company 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, Mercury said in relevant part: “We continued to deliver strong revenue growth and profitability both in our organic and acquired businesses, validating once again our ongoing strategy.”

On an ensuing conference call to discuss the Company’s financial and operating results for the first fiscal quarter ended on September 30, 2017, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “In summary, Mercury’s on track for another great year in fiscal 2018. Our business model is working very well.”

On yet another conference call held to discuss Mercury’s financial and operating results for the second fiscal quarter and six month (period) ended December 31, 2017, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Even with the incremental investment in R&D, we expect to see improvement in our free cash flow for the year as we continue to grow and our CapEX is reduced versus fiscal ’17.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$42.93
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$34.91
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

18.68%

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 September 10, 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 Mercury 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:

MRCY Lawsuit Mercury Systems Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


GLCNF class action Glencore Lawsuit Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

GLCNF Lawsuit Filed, Securities Class Action Report

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

On July 9, 2018, investors sued Glencore Plc (“Glencore,” “GLCNF,” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs in the GLCNF Lawsuit allege that they acquired Glencore stock at artificially inflated prices between September 30, 2016 and July 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 about the Glencore Class Action Lawsuit, please reach out to us today!

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Glencore (OTC: GLCNF, GLNCY) produces, refines, processes, stores, transports and markets metals, minerals, energy products and agricultural products worldwide.

Founded as a trading company in the 1970s, Glencore says it now has approximately 150 mining and metallurgical sites, oil production assets and agricultural facilities – including mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The Company also says it employs more than 140,000 people in more than 50 countries.

Summary of Facts

Glencore and two of its senior executives (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 certain conduct and the investigation thereof from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Glencore stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events occurring on May 18, 2018 and July 3, 2018. On May 8, Bloomberg reported that, “the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office was preparing to open a formal bribery investigation into Glencore.”

Then, before the market opened on July 3, Glencore “disclosed that the U.S. Department of Justice issued its subsidiary a subpoena to produce documents and other records in connection with its compliance with U.S. money laundering statutes and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the July 9 complaint, the Company repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, an article published by Bloomberg at the beginning of the Class Period quoted the Company as saying that it “takes ethics and compliance very seriously…”

Then on an annual report filed with the SEC on March 2, 2017, the Company said in pertinent part: “We are committed to complying with or exceeding the laws and external requirements applicable to our operations and products.”

Finally, in another annual report filed with the SEC on March 2, 2018, the Company said in pertinent part: “We seek to maintain a culture of ethical behavior and compliance throughout the Group, rather than simply performing the minimum required by laws and regulations. We will not knowingly assist any third party in breaching the law, or participate in any criminal, fraudulent or corrupt practice in any country.”

On the same form, Glencore referred to its bribery and corruption policy, saying in pertinent part: “Glencore’s Global Anti-Corruption Policy… contains our clear position on bribery and corruption: the offering, paying, authorizing, soliciting or accepting of bribes is unacceptable. We conduct analysis for corruption risks within our businesses and seek to address these risks through policies and procedures, training and awareness raising, monitoring and controls.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$9.17
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$8.31
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

9.38%

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 September 7, 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 Glencore 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:

GLCNF Lawsuit Glencore Class Action Lawsuit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.

 


SBGL Class Action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

SBGL Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

July 6, 2018

On June 27, 2018, investors sued Sibanye Gold Limited (“Sibanye” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Sibanye’s American Depository Receipts (ADRs) at artificially inflated prices between April 7, 2017 and June 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Sibanye class action (SBGL class action):

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Sibanye (NYSE: SBGL) engages in the mining of precious metals in South Africa, Zimbabwe and the United States.

Its history dates to February 2013, when GFI Mining South Africa listed as Sibanye on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The Company’s ADRs have also been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since that time.

Sibanye is incorporated in the Republic of South Africa, where it also maintains its primary executive offices.

Summary of Facts

Sibanye and two of its senior officers 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 mining safety from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Sibanye’s ADRs to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of articles published between June 13, 2018 and June 27, 2018. The first article, published by Mercury, stated that, “Company supervisors forced and intimidated miners to work in dangerous conditions.”

Then, an article published by Bloomberg before the market opened on June 26, reported that, “another worker was killed at [Sibanye’s] Driefontein operation in South Africa, brining the total deaths at the company’s mines this year to 21.” The article also stated that Sibanye “accounts for nearly half of the 46 people reported killed at South African mines in 2018 and is already the subject of an investigation by the chief inspector of mines.”

Another article published by Bloomberg before the market opened the next day reported that “Citigroup Inc. cut their recommendation on the stock to neutral from buy, citing the Company’s ‘track record’ from both an ‘environmental, social and governance perspective, as well as the underlying investment risk that it holds.’”

A closer look…

As alleged in the June 27 complaint, the Company repeatedly made 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 said in pertinent part: “Our employees are our most important asset. In order to keep our workforce safe and healthy, we focus on compliance and systematically reducing employees’ exposure to risk.”

Then, on another form filed with the SEC on April 2, 2018, the Company reaffirmed its commitment to safety, saying in relevant part: “Safety is our principal value and we continue to focus significant effort and attention as well as resources on ensuring that our employees are able to work in a safe and conducive environment.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on Sibanye’s ADR Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$2.82
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$2.51
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

10.99%

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 August 27, 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 Sibanye’s ADRs 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:

 

SBGL Class Action Tracker

 

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


FLKS class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

FLKS Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

July 2, 2018

On June 19, investors sued Flex Pharma, Inc. (“Flex Pharma” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Flex Pharma stock at artificially inflated prices between November 6, 2017, and June 12, 2018. They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. Here’s what you need to know about the Flex class action (FLKS class action):

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Flex Pharma (NASDAQ; FLKS) is clinical-stage biotechnology company. As such, it develops “innovative and proprietary treatments for cramps and spasticity.”

Specifically, the Company creates medicines that can be used to treat ailments ranging from nighttime leg cramps to “cervical dystonia, spinal cord spasticity and multiple sclerosis.”

The Company’s claims about its lead product candidate, FLX-787, which was evaluated as a potential treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (“ALS”) and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (“CMT”), are at the crux of the current lawsuit.

Summary of Facts

Flex Pharma 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, operational and compliance policies during the Class Period.

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

The truth came out when Flex Pharma issued a press release on June 13, 2018. In it, the Company announced that it would end “its ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial investigations of FLX-787 in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) due to oral tolerability concerns in both studies.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the June 19 complaint, Flex Pharma repeatedly made 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 said in pertinent part: “Our development programs are steadily advancing. We have initiated our Phase 2b ALS trial under Fast Track designation, and more recently, our Phase 2b CMT trial. These two studies, as well as the ongoing exploratory spasticity study in MS in Australia are expected to yield several important data readouts in 2018.”

On another form filed with the SEC on March 7, 2018, Flex Pharma stated in pertinent part: “The next 12 months will be transformational for Flex as we expect to report results from a number of larger clinical trials – first an exploratory spasticity study in MS, followed by two Phase 2 studies in ALS and a Charcot-Marie-Tooth patients, with our current cash position taking us to mid 2019.”

Finally, on another form filed with the SEC on May 2, 2018, the Company said on pertinent part: “The past few months have been particularly rewarding on the clinical front, as we achieved significant milestones with positive data in two serious and distinctly different neurological diseases: MS and ALS. We believe these data demonstrate the clear potential of FLX-787 to reduce painful crams and spasms in these patient populations.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$4.18
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$1.04
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

75.12%

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 August 20, 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 Flex Pharma 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:

 

Class Action Tracker

 

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


AKERS class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

AKERS Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On June 13, 2018, investors sued Akers Biosciences, Inc., (“Akers” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Akers stock at artificially inflated prices between May 15, 2017 and June 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. Here’s what you need to know about the Akers class action:

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Along with its subsidiaries, Akers (NASDAQ: AKERS) creates, makes and distributes “rapid screening and testing products” for delivery of healthcare information to healthcare providers and consumers.

Based in New Jersey, the Company has been in business since 1989. According to its website, Akers’ initial goal was to create “proprietary, in vitro diagnostic technologies that accelerate the rate at which clinicians, and in some cases consumers, can obtain health information.” It is now “dedicated to the development of time- and cost-efficient, single-use devices that can be utilized almost anytime, anywhere.”

Today the Company has customers both at home and also abroad.

Summary of Facts

Akers and two of its 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 the recognition of certain revenue and the extent of the weakness in certain internal controls in SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Akers stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that transpired between May 21, 2018 and June 5, 2018. The Company first informed the SEC something was amiss when it filed a form stating that it would be unable to meet the deadline for filing a quarterly report. It attributed its inability to do to findings made during an ongoing review of the “characterization of certain revenue recognition items.”

Then, before the market opened on May 29, the Company issued a press release announcing that, “Raymond F. Akers Jr., Ph.D. has resigned as a director of the Company with immediate effect.”

On June 1, the Company filed another form with the SEC in which it alleged that, “Raymond Akers ‘has not been fully cooperative’ with its review of certain revenue recognition items for prior quarters.”

Finally, on June 5, the Company filed another form with the SEC, which was accompanied by a letter written on Raymond Akers’ behalf. The letter refuted the allegation characterized him as a “whistleblower” and credited him with demanding the investigation regarding revenue recognition.

History Repeating Itself

As alleged in the June 13 complaint, Akers repeatedly made 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: “There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting … during our most recently completed fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.”

On another form filed with the SEC on April 3, 2018, the Company stated that it would be unable to meet the deadline for filing its Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2017. It also explained that it would be unable to do so because it needed “additional time to gather information and finalize its financial statements.”

Nevertheless, the Company filed its Annual Report that day. In it, Akers said that it “identified a material weakness in our controls related to segregation of duties and other immaterial weaknesses in several areas of data management and documentation.” In the Annual Report, the Company also indicated that, “there were no changes in internal control over financial reporting that materially affected or were reasonably likely to materially affect the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$0.49
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.46
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6%

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 August 13, 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 Akers 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:

 

Class Action Tracker

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


PCG class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

PCG Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On June 12, 2018, investors sued PG&E Corporation (“PG&E” or the “Company”) in United States District Court For The Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired PG&E stock at artificially inflated prices between April 29, 2015 and June 8, 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. Here’s what you need to know about the PG&E class action (PCG class action):

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Based in California, the Company (NYSE: PCG) carries out the bulk of its operations through its wholly owned subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“Pacific Gas Electric” or the “Utility”).

Incorporated in 1905, Pacific Gas Electric now has 20,000 employees and millions of customers in a 70,000-square-mile service area in northern and central California. According to PG&E’s website, the Utility distributes energy through 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines, 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines, 42,141 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,438 miles of transportation pipelines.

Summary of Facts

PG&E and six of its current and former senior executives (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about its compliance with safety requirements and state regulations, and the role of its electricity networks in numerous wildfires, from SEC filings and related materials. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused PG&E stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that transpired between October 8, 2017 (when the wildfires started) and June 8, 2018.

Three days after the California wildfires started, the media reported that state authorities/officials were “looking at” whether the Company’s power lines sparked any of the wildfires that decimated more than 245,000 acres in eight counties. On that same day (October 11, 2017), the Company filed a form with the SEC in which it said that it was “currently unknown whether the Utility would have any liability associated with these fires.”

Then, on December 20, 2017, the Company issued a press release, which it also filed with the SEC, in which it announced the suspension of its cash dividend. It also explained that it based its decision on uncertainty “related to causes and potential liabilities associated with the extraordinary October 2017 Northern California wildfires.”

Finally, on May 25, 2018 and June 8, 2018, CAL FIRE investigators issued two separate press releases in which they said that trees parts of trees coming into contact with PG&E power lines sparked 16 of the Northern California wildfires.

 

A closer look…

As alleged in the June 12 complaint, PG&E repeatedly made misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

For example, during a conference call held at the beginning of the Class Period to discuss the Company’s first fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2015, one of the Individual Defendants “assured investors of the Company’s commitment to ‘step up vegetation management activities to mitigate wildfire risk.’”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on February 18, 2016, the Company said in pertinent part: “Throughout 2015, the Utility upgraded several critical substations and re-conducted a number of transmission lines to improve maintenance and system flexibility, reliability and safety.”

On the same form, the Company added that: “The Utility plans to continue performing work to improve the reliability and safety of its electricity and distribution operations in 2016.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on PG&E’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$41.45
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$39.76
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

4.08%

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 August 13, 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 PG&E 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:


 

Class Action Tracker 

 

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


TAL class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

TAL Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On June 18, 2018, investors sued TAL Education Group (“TAL” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired TAL’s American Depository Shares (“ADS”) at artificially inflated prices between April 26, 2018 and June 13, 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. Here’s what you need to know about the TAL Edcuation class action (TAL class action):

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: TAL) bills itself as “a leading education and technology enterprise in China.” As such, it provides “educational services and offers comprehensive tutoring services” for students in subjects ranging from English to Chinese, physics and chemistry.

Since its inception, the Company says, it has been “committed to integrating the internet [sic] and technology into education to deliver a better study experience for children.”

Although it is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, TAL is based in Beijing and most of the students it serves are also located in China.

Summary of Facts

TAL 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 and prospects during the Class Period.

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

The truth emerged on June 13, 2018, when Carson Block published a report “accusing the Company of issuing fraudulent profit figures by overstating net income, net income margin and other essential accounting figures.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the June 18 complaint, TAL made several false or misleading statements in a press release issued on April 26, 2018. In it, the Company shared its “unaudited financial results” for fourth fiscal quarter and 2018 fiscal year.

In the portion of the press release devoted to TAL’s “Highlights for the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year, the Company stated in pertinent part: “Net income attributable to TAL increased by 102.9% to US $69.5 million from US $34.3 million in the same period of the prior year.”

The Company also stated that: “Non-GAAP net income attributable to TAL, which excluded share-based compensation expenses, increased by 83.9% to US $82.1 million from US $ 44.7 million in the same period of the prior year.”

What TAL allegedly failed to disclose, however, was that it had overstated its net income and that its net income was actually “deteriorating.”

Furthermore, in its June 13 report, Carson Block alleged that the Company had been “fraudulently overstating its profits since at least FY 2016.” Carson Block also said it estimated that the Company had overstated its net income by at least 43.6% from FY 2016 through FY2018.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$45.43
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$38.41
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

15.45%

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 August 17, 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 TAL’s 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:


Class Action Tracker 

 

 

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


Class Action Reports

UNM Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

June 29, 2018

On June 13, 2018, investors sued Unum Group (“Unum” or the ”Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs in the federal class action suit allege that they acquired Unum stock at artificially inflated prices between January 31, 2018 and May 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Unum class action:

(more…)


QCOM class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

Qualcomm Class Action Lawsuit

zlk2_asuka

June 22, 2018

On June 8, 2018, investors sued Qualcomm, Incorporated (“Qualcomm” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of California. Investors in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Qualcomm stock at artificially inflated prices between January 31, 2018 and March 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Qualcomm class action lawsuit (QCOM class action lawsuit):

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Qualcomm (NASDAQ: QCOM) is a self-described “pioneer in 3G (third generation) and 4G (fourth generation) wireless technologies.” It also claims that it is a “leader in 5G (fifth generation) wireless technologies to empower a new era of intelligent, connected devices.” As such, it generates the bulk of its revenue through the sales of “integrated circuit products” and the licensing of intellectual property.

According to its website, Qualcomm was founded in 1985 and became a public company six years later. After reaching several milestones in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the Company says it became “the world’s leading mobile chipset provider” in 2007.

Summary of Facts

The Company and two of its senior executives and/or directors currently stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and or withholding critical information about Qualcomm’s business practices during the Class Period.

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

The truth about what Qualcomm did to try and prevent Broadcom Limited (“Broadcom”) from acquiring it emerged in a series of events that began when Broadcom issued a press release on March 5, 2018. In it, Broadcom said it had just learned that Qualcomm secretly requested that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) investigate Broadcom’s attempts to acquire the Company. Broadcom also described the move as a “blatant, desperate act” designed to “entrench [Qualcomm’s] incumbent board of directors and prevent its own stockholders from voting for Broadcom’s independent director nominees.”

Nevertheless, one week later Qualcomm filed with the SEC a form along with a letter that it had received from the U.S. Department of Treasury. In it, the Treasury Department confirmed that CFIUS had identified “potential national security concerns” during the investigation requested by Qualcomm.

Then, after the market closed on March 12, 2018, U.S. President Donald J. Trump acted on CFIUS’ recommendation and issued an order “blocking Broadcom from taking further action regarding its proposed acquisition of Qualcomm.”

 

A closer look…

As alleged in the June 8 complaint, Qualcomm repeatedly made misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company discussed Broadcom’s plan, saying in pertinent part: “On November 12, 2017, following a comprehensive review conducted in consultation with financial and legal advisors, our Board of Directors unanimously rejected the Proposed Transaction, concluding that it dramatically undervalues the Company.”

On the same form, Qualcomm said that it was “subject to a disruptive takeover proposal” and that, “we may not be able to attract and retain qualified employees.”

However, Qualcomm did not disclose that it had recently approached CFIUS about the investigation.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$62.81
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$59.70
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

4.95%

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 August 7, 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 Qualcomm 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:

 

QCOM Class Action
 

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


Class Action Reports

Deutsche Bank Class Action Lawsuit

zlk2_asuka

On June 7, 2018, investors sued Deutsche Bank Aktiengesessschaft (Deutsche Bank or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Deutsche Bank stock at artificially inflated prices between March 20, 2017 and May 30, 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Deutsche Bank class action lawsuit (DB class action lawsuit):

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Deutsche Bank (NYSE: DB) is a worldwide financial service provider that engages in commercial, investment, private and retail banking. As such, it offers its customers comprehensive services including but not limited to debt, foreign exchange, derivatives, commodities, money markets, repo and securitization, cash equities and research.

The Company’s history dates to 1870, when Adelbert Delbrück, a private banker, and Ludwig Bamberger, a politician and currency expert, first proposed its creation. The King of Prussia approved its articles of incorporation on March 10, 1870, and it officially opened for business that April.

Its first offices were located in Berlin, and its first domestic branches were located in Bremen and Frankfurt am Main. Its first foreign branches were located in Shaghai, Yokahama and London. Deutsche Bank established its first U.S. branch in New York in 1979.

Although its executive offices are now located in Frankfurt am Main, Deutsche Bank also has a U.S. office on Wall Street.

Summary of Facts

Deutsche Bank and three of its current and former officers and/or directors now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critic information about the Company’s business practices during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the efficacy of its internal control environment and infrastructure from SEC filings and related materials. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Deutsche Bank stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in an article published by the Wall Street Journal on May 31, 2018.  The article revealed that “the U.S. Federal Reserve had designated Deutsche Bank’s U.S. business to be in ‘troubled condition,’ citing controls about its around measuring financial exposure to clients and valuing collateral that backed loans.’” The article also revealed that, “the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has added Deutsche Bank’s subsidiary, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas to its ‘problem banks’ list of at-risk institutions.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the June 7 complaint, the Company repeatedly made misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, it said in pertinent part: “An evaluation was carried out under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures… as of December 31, 2016. Based upon such evaluation, our Chairman and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the design and operation of our disclosure and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2016.”

The same form included certifications signed by two of the Individual Defendants that stated: “The financial statements, and other financial information included in [the 2016 20-F], fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in [the 2016 20-F].”

Deutsche Bank reiterated those statements and included signed certifications pertaining to the accuracy of its financial statements on another form filed with the SEC on March 16, 2018.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$11.57
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$11.08
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

4.24%

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 August 6, 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 Deutsche 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:

 

DB Class Action
 

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


ORA Class Action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

Ormat Technologies Class Action Lawsuit

zlk2_asuka

On June 11, 2018, investors sued Ormat Technologies, Inc., (“Ormat” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Nevada. The federal securities class action alleges that the plaintiffs acquired Ormat stock at artificially inflated prices between August 8, 2017 and May 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. Here’s what you need to know about the Ormat Technologies class action lawsuit (ORA class action lawsuit):

 

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Ormat (NYSE: ORA) designs, builds and supplies “power generating equipment” for “geothermal and recovered energy” power plants.

Established in 1965, the Company initially achieved recognition as “a pioneer of proprietary turbine designs, capable of generating electricity from low enthalpy energy resources.” As such, it focused its efforts on manufacturing power generation equipment. In the late 20th century, the Company shifted gears and “growing renewable energy expertise on the geothermal industry.”

Today, the Company says, it has customers in 30 countries. It also claims that it has gained “focused its global expertise in exploring, developing, designing, manufacturing, building, owning and operating geothermal power plants in Kenya, Guadalupe, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States.”

Summary of Facts

Ormat and two of its senior officers 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 errors, and about the efficacy of its internal controls over financial reporting, from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Ormat stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth first surfaced on May 11, when the Company revealed that it would be unable to meet the deadline for filing its Quarterly Report for the period that ended on March 31, 2018 with the SEC. The Company also blamed the discovery of “an error in the Company’s financial statement presentation of deterred income tax assets and deferred income tax liabilities that affects the Company’s balance sheets in previous reporting periods” for its inability to do so.

Less than a week later Ormat revealed that “it will restate its second, third and fourth quarter 2017 financial statements and its full-year 2017 financial statements.” Ormat also advised investors that they should no longer rely on the prior financial statements, earnings statements or related material for the specified periods.

A closer look…

As alleged in the June 11 complaint, the Company repeatedly made false and misleading statements in its SEC filings during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC on August 8, 2017, the Company stated that its “disclosure controls and procedures” were effective as of June 30, 2017. It also stated that “[t]here were no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting in the second quarter of 2017 that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect our internal controls over financial reporting.”

On the same form, Ormat included signed certifications in which the senior officers named in the suit affirmed 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.”

The Company reiterated these statements and included signed certifications attesting to the same matters on two additional forms filed with the SEC during the Class Period.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$53.02
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$52.35
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

1.26%

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 August 10, 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 Ormat 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:


ORA Class Action 
 

 

About Us

This information is provided for general information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Any and all information herein is simply an opinion based on publicly available information and should not necessarily be construed as fact.  For more information, please visit our website at www.zlk.com.

Attorney Advertising

 

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.


CALI class action lawsuit Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

CALI Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

June 14, 2018

On June 5, 2018, investors sued China Auto Logistics, Inc. (“China Auto” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired China Auto securities at artificially inflated prices between March 28, 2017 and April 13, 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. Here’s what you need to know about the China Auto class action lawsuit (CALI class action lawsuit)

(more…)


ANW class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

ANW Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On June 5, 2018, investors sued Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. (“Aegean” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Aegean stock at artificially inflated prices between April 28, 2016, and June 4, 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Aegean class action (ANW Class Action):

(more…)


MBVX class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

MBVX Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

June 7, 2018

On June 4, 2018, investors sued MabVax Therapeutics Holdings (“MabVax” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired MabVax stock at artificially inflated prices between March 14, 2016 and May 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the MabVax class action lawsuit (MBVX class action lawsuit):

(more…)


REPH class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

REPH Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On May 31, 2018, investors sued Recro Pharma, Inc., (“Recro” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Recro stock at artificially inflated prices between July 31, 2017 and May 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Recro class action lawsuit (REPH class action lawsuit)

(more…)


Class Action Reports

FLR Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

May 31, 2018

On May 25, 2018, investors sued Fluor Corporation (“Fluor” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Fluor stock at artificially inflated prices between August 4, 2013, and May 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Fluor class action lawsuit (FLR class action lawsuit):

(more…)


Class Action Reports

PPG Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

May 29, 2018

On May 20, 2018, investors sued PPG Industries, Inc. (“PPG” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired PPG stock at artificially inflated prices between April 24, 2017 and May 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the PPG class action lawsuit:

(more…)


PRTA class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

PRTA Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

May 23, 2018

On May 15, 2018, investors sued Prothena Corporation, Plc (“Prothena” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California San Francisco Division. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Prothena stock at artificially inflated prices between October 15, 2015 and April 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Prothena class action lawsuit (PRTA class action lawsuit):

(more…)


Class Action Reports

KLIC Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On May 11, 2018, investors sued Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. (“Kulicke and Soffa” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Kulicke and Soffa stock at artificially inflated prices between November 16, 2017 and May 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Kulicke and Soffa class action lawsuit (KLIC class action lawsuit):

(more…)


SYMC class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

SYMC Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On May 17, 2018, investors sued Symantec Corporation (“Symantec” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Symantec stock at artificially inflated prices between May 20, 2017 and May 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Symantec class action lawsuit (SYMC class action lawsuit):

(more…)


INWK class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

INWK Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

May 18, 2018

On May 10, 2018, investors sued InnerWorkings, Inc. (“InnerWorkings” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired InnerWorkings stock at artificially inflated prices between August 11, 2015, and May 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the InnerWorkings class action lawsuit (INWK class action lawsuit):

(more…)


Flex class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

FLEX Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On May 8, 2018, investors sued Flex Ltd. (“Flex” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Flex stock at artificially inflated prices between January 26, 2017 and April 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Flex class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Class Action Reports

QNST Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

May 14, 2018

On April 27, 2018, investors sued QuinStreet, Incorporated (“QuinStreet” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired QuinStreet stock at artificially inflated prices between February 10, 2016 and April 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the QuinStreet class action lawsuit (QNST class action lawsuit): (more…)


Class Action Reports

LC Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On May 2, 2018, investors sued LendingClub Corporation (“LendingClub” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired LendingClub stock at artificially inflated prices between February 28, 2015 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the LendingClub class action lawsuit (LC class action lawsuit):

(more…)


ESPR class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

ESPR Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On May 7, 2018, investors sued Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. (“Esperion” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Esperion stock at artificially inflated prices between February 22, 2017 and May 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Esperion class action lawsuit (ESPR class action lawsuit):

(more…)


Aceto class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

ACET Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

May 8, 2018

On April 25, 2018, investors sued Aceto Corporation (“Aceto” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Aceto stock at artificially inflated prices between February 1, 2018 and April 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Aceto class action lawsuit (ACET class action lawsuit):

(more…)


Gridsum class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

GSUM Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On April 25, 2018, investors sued Gridsum Holding, Inc. (“Gridsum” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Gridsum American Depository Receipts (ADRs) at artificially inflated prices between April 27, 2017, and April 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Gridsum class action lawsuit (GSUM class action lawsuit):

(more…)


Allegiant class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

ALGT Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On April 24, 2018, investors sued Allegiant Travel Company (“Allegiant” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Allegiant stock at artificially inflated pries between June 8, 2015 and April 13, 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the ALGT class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Macquarie class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

MIC Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On April 23, 2018, investors sued Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (“Macquarie” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Macquarie stock at artificially inflated prices between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Macquarie class action lawsuit (MIC class action lawsuit):

(more…)


Class Action Reports

MYGM Class Action Lawsuit Litigation Report

zlk2_asuka

April 26, 2018

On April 20, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was brought against Myriad Genetics, Inc. (“Myriad” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Utah. Investors in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Myriad stock at artificially inflated prices between August 13, 2014 and March 12, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. Here’s what you need to know about the Myriad Genetics class action lawsuit (MYGM class action):

(more…)


Class Action Reports

Live Nation Class Action Lawsuit Litigation Report

zlk2_asuka

On April 18, 2018, investors brought a securities class action lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (“Live Nation” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Live Nation stock at artificially inflated prices between February 23, 2017 and March 30, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. Here’s what we know about the Live Nation class action lawsuit (LYV class action):

(more…)


Class Action Reports

Colony Northstar Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

April 20, 2018

On April 6, 2018, investors sued Colony NorthStar, Inc. (“Colony NorthStar” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Colony NorthStar stock at artificially inflated prices between February 28, 2017 and March 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Colony Northstar class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Ericsson class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

Ericsson Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On April 5, 2018, investors sued Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson” or the “Company” in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Ericsson’s American Depository Shares (“ADS”) at artificially inflated prices between April 8, 2013 and July 17, 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Ericsson class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Class Action Reports

Synacor Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

April 19, 2018

On April 4, 2018, investors sued Synacor, Inc. (“Synacor” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Synacor stock at artificially inflated prices between May 4, 2016, and March 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Synacor class action lawsuit:

(more…)


IZEA class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

IZEA Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On April 4, 2018, investors sued IZEA, Inc. (“IZEA” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired IZEA stock at artificially inflated prices between May 15, 2015 and April 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the IZEA class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Class Action Reports

TrueCar Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On March 30, 2018, investors sued TrueCar, Inc. (“TrueCar” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired TrueCar stock at artificially inflated prices between February 16, 2017, and November 6, 2017 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses revealed upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. Here’s everything you need to know about the TrueCar class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Longfin class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

Longfin Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On April 4, 2018, investors sued Longfin Corp. (“Longfin” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Longfin stock at artificially inflated prices between December 13, 2017 and April 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. Here’s everything you need to know about the Longfin class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Solid Biosciences class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

Solid Biosciences Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On March 27, 2018, investors sued Solid Biosciences, Inc., (“Solid Biosciences” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that their acquisition of Solid Biosciences stock at artificially inflated prices was based on inaccurate information in the Company’s registration statement and prospectus (collectively the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with the initial public offering (“IPO” or “Offering”) made on January 25, 2018; and/or that they acquired the Company’s stock at artificially inflated pries between January 25, 2018 and March 14, 2018 (the “Class Period”). Here’s what you need to know about the Solid Biosciences class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Shanda Games class action Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

Shanda Games Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On March 19, 2018, investors sued Shanda Games, Limited (“Shanda” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they held or sold Shanda stock or American Depository Shares (“ADS”) at artificially deflated prices between May 5, 2015 and November 18, 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. Here’s what you need to need to know about the Shanda Games class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Facebook Class Action Lawsuit Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

Patterson Companies Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

April 17, 2018

On March 28, 2018, investors sued Patterson Companies, Inc. (“Patterson” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Patterson stock at artificially inflated prices between June 26, 2015 and February 28, 2018. They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. Here’s what you need to know about the Patterson Companies class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Facebook Class Action Lawsuit Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

Facebook Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On March 20, 2018, investors sued Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Facebook stock at artificially inflated prices between February 3, 2017, and March 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. Here’s everything to know about the Facebook class action lawsuit:

(more…)


Facebook Class Action Lawsuit Levi & Korsinsky

Class Action Reports

A10 Networks Class Action Report

zlk2_asuka

On March 22, 2018 investors sued A10 Networks, Inc. (“A10” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired A10 stock at artificially inflated prices between February 9, 2016 and January 30, 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. Here’s everything to know about the A10 Networks class action lawsuit: (more…)