Class Action Reports


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 9, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 TLGT Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

TLGT Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 8, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$3.19
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

6.90%

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

 ORN Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

ORN Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce AAPL Lawsuit; AAPL Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 7, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$157.92
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

9.96%

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

 AAPL Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

AAPL Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce EB Lawsuit; EB Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 3, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$32.42
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

24.55%

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

 EB Class Action EB Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

EB Class Action EB Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces NOK Lawsuit; NOK Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

May 2, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$6.26
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

6.07%

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

 NOK Class Action, NOK Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

NOK Class Action, NOK Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce FCHS Lawsuit; FCHS Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 29, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

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

A closer look

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$1.01
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

65.35%

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

 FCHS Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

FCHS Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce CRCM Lawsuit; CRCM Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 26, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$19.76
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

6.62%

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

 CRCM Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

CRCM Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

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

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 25, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$33.02
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

11.90%

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

 T Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

T Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce AMRS Lawsuit; AMRS Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 24, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$3.88
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

20.10%

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

 AMRS Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

AMRS Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce NTNX Lawsuit; NTNX Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 12, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

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

History Repeating Itself

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$50.09
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

32.72%

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

 NTNX Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

NTNX Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce CRBP Lawsuit; CRBP Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$6.94

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

 CRBP Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

CRBP Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce CTL Lawsuit; CTL Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 11, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$12.97
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

6.32%

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

 CTL Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

CTL Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


Levi & Korsinsky Announce ARA Lawsuit; ARA Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce ARA Lawsuit; ARA Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

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

A closer look

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$9.70
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

38.04%

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

 ARA Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

ARA Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce NIO Lawsuit; NIO Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 10, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$10.16
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

30.22%

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

 NIO Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

NIO Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce SPB Lawsuit; SPB Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 9, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$94.23
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

20.40%

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

 SPB Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

SPB Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce HCSG Lawsuit; HCSG Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 8, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$37.74
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

13.14%

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

 HCSG Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

HCSG Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce MAT Lawsuit; MAT Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 5, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$16.91
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

18.27%

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

 MAT Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

MAT Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce CORT Lawsuit; CORT Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 4, 2019

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

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

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

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

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

Summary of Facts

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

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

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

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

A closer look…

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

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

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

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

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

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

 cort class action lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

cort class action lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce STMP Lawsuit; STMP Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 3, 2019

Grabisch v. Stamps.com, Inc., et al 2:19-cv-01497 — On February 28, 2019, investors sued Stamps.com, Inc. (“Stamps.com” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the STMP class action allege that they acquired Stamps.com stock at artificially inflated prices between May 3, 2017 and February 21, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the STMP lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: STMP) bills itself as “the leading provider of Internet-based postage solutions,” and “the first company to be approved by the U.S. Postal Service®  (USPS) to offer a software-only postage service that lets customers buy and print postage online.”

As such, it says that it caters to small businesses, home offices and online retailers. It also claims that it has more than 730,000 monthly subscribers.

The Company says provides its users with reliable and convenient means to print postage using their existing computer, printer and Internet connection. Stamps.com also claims that its service allows its customers to coordinate mailing and shipping operations more effectively and securely than they can via traditional means.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out in a conference call conducted by the Company after the market closed on February 21, 2019. During the call, which Stamps.com held to discuss several matters, the Company’s chairman and CEO abruptly announced the termination of its shipping partnership with USPS. The announcement came as a shock because “USPS-related business” accounts for the vast majority of its revenue. In another shocking revelation, the Company also announced that it expected its 2019 revenue to drop by more than 5 percent.

A closer look…

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

For example, in a press release issued at the outset of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants stated in relevant part: ‘In addition to our overall revenue and earnings growth, during the first quarter we reached our highest level of paid customers, we saw continued strong growth in our shipping business areas, and we experienced strong contributions from all of our subsidiaries.”

In the same press release, the same person added in relevant part: “We remain very excited about our future prospects….”

Then, during an earnings call held on August 2, 2017, the same Individual Defendant stated in pertinent part: “the partnership with the Postal Service is continuing to be stronger and stronger…”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$198.08
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$83.65
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

57.77%

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

 STMP Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 29, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

STMP Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce WTW Lawsuit; WTW Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

April 2, 2019

Potts v. Weight Watchers International Inc., et al 1:19-cv-02005-WHP — On March 4, 2019, investors sued Weight Watchers International (“Weight Watchers” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the WTW class action allege that they acquired Weight Watchers stock at artificially inflated prices between May 4, 2018 and February 26, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the WTW Lawsuit, contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: WTW) is a global provider of weight management services. As such, it has divisions catering to clients in North America, Continental Europe, the United Kingdom, and other parts of the world.

Traditionally, the Company’s offerings included various products and services designed to help people lose weight and keep it off. Its driving force is the use of a “science-driven approach to help participants lose weight by forming healthy eating habits, eating smarter, getting more exercise and providing support.”

Weight Watchers generates revenue through various subscriptions, fees for workshops and related activities, sales of consumer products, and other sources.

According to the March 4 complaint, the Company “recently rebranded its self as ‘WW’ and tried to focus less on weight loss and more on maintaining general health.”

Summary of Facts

Weight Watchers and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) and Artal Group S.A. (which effectively controlled Weight Watchers during the Class Period) now stand accused of deceiving investors. They allegedly did so by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the time in question.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about subscriber growth from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Weight Watchers stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

The truth came out after trading ended on February 26, 2019. That’s when the Company issued a press release and held a conference call with investors and stock analysts to discuss its “actual 4Q2018 and FY18 results and financial prospects.” In doing so, the Company revealed that the subscriber count had again dipped to 3.9 million during the fourth quarter, and acknowledged that the decline would continue during the 2019 fiscal year.

A closer look…

As alleged in the March 4 complaint, the Company and /or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in remarks made at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Member engagement has been incredible with members staying longer than ever before. Average retention is now well over nine months.”

During a conference call with investors and stock analysts on May 3, 2018, the same Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “We ended the quarter with 4.6 million subscribers worldwide, the highest level in the history of Weight Watchers, driven by the enthusiastic global response to our new program.”

Finally, the Company filed a Registration Statement related to a secondary public offering being carried out for Artal Group S.A. with the SEC on May 14, 2018. In it, the Company stated in relevant part: “Our strong brand, together with the effectiveness of our program, loyal customer base, unparalleled network of meetings and leaders and strong digital offerings, enable us to attract and retain both new and returning customers.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$29.57
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$19.37
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

34.50%

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

 wtw Class Action Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

WTW Class Action Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


CAG Lawsuit, CAG Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces CAG Lawsuit; CAG Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 19, 2019

West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc. et al 1:19-cv-01323 — On February 22, 2019, investors sued Conagra Brands, Inc., (“Conagra” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. Plaintiffs in the CAG class action allege that they acquired Conagra stock at artificially inflated prices between June 27, 2018 and December 19, 2018 (the “Class Period”); or that they did so based on statements in Offering Documents related to the Company’s secondary public offering on or about October 9, 2018. They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during those times. For more information on the CAG lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Chicago-based Company (NYSE: CAG) makes and promotes packaged foods for retail customers and the food service industry.

According to its website, the Company has operations in approximately 50 locations. Conagra also has more than 17,000 employees and generates $11 billion in revenue. Its brand portfolio includes dozens of well-known food products.

On June 27, 2018, the Company announced that it acquired Pinnacle in a “cash and stock transaction valued at approximately $10.9 billion (the “Transaction”). Conagra secured some of the funding for the acquisition through a secondary public offering initiated on or about October 9, 2018.

In addition to the Company’s statements during the Class Period, Conagra’s statements in Offering Documents related to the SPO are at the crux of the February 22 complaint.

Summary of Facts

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

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

Numerous Conagra officers and directors, and 15 other businesses that helped with the preparation and issuance of, and or signed the Offering Documents related to the SPO are also named as defendants in the February 22 complaint.

The truth came out in a December 20, 2018 press release in which the Company announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. The timeframe encompassed the first few weeks after Conagra assumed ownership of Pinnacle. Specifically, the results revealed that, “net sales for the Pinnacle segment” for the first 31 days after closing totaled $259 million, which fell short of expectations “due to a weak performance across a range of significant brands.”

On a conference call held that day, one of the Individual Defendants also acknowledged that there had been a, “deterioration in the legacy Pinnacle business over the course of the calendar year 2018” as “growth stalled” for three of Pinnacle’s most significant brands.

Following the disclosures, analysts weighed in, questioning the Company’s due diligence prior to the acquisition.

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 22 complaint, Conagra and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a conference call held at the beginning of the Class Period to discuss the Transaction, one of the Individual Defendants said the Company has, “proven track record of executing strategic transactions,” and that it would be able to “implement a smooth integration process.”

Then, at an industry conference held on September 4, 2018, the same Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “With respect to Pinnacle, this is as much of a no brainer of a deal as I think you’re going to see.”

At the same event, the same Individual Defendant “assured investors that the Company had done a thorough due diligence on Pinnacle, saying in relevant part: “I think the way to think about this is we’ve been looking at this for a while. And we know food businesses. We’ve been spending our whole career in the food industry. So, we’ve been very clear-eyed from the beginning as to what the synergy prospects were with this company…”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$29.09
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$24.28
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

16.53%

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

 CAG Lawsuit, CAG Class Action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 23, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

CAG Lawsuit, CAG Class Action

About Us

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

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

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


Levi & Korsinsky Announce VNDA Lawsuit; VNDA Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce VNDA Lawsuit; VNDA Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 18, 2019

Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al 1:19-cv-01108-APR-LB — On February 25, 2019, investors sued Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Vanda” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The VNDA class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Vanda stock at artificially inflated prices between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the VNDA lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: VNDA) is a self-described global biopharmaceutical company. As such, it specializes in the development and mass marketing of new and unique treatments to address significant unmet medical needs.

Vanda’s products include HETLIOZ (tasimelteon), which is for the treatment of non-24-hour sleep-wake disorders; and Fanapt (iloperidone), which is used to treat schizophrenia.

The company has been incorporated since 2002 and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. In addition to the United States, Vanda promotes its products in Europe and Israel.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out in a series of events occurring on October 22, 2018 and February 11, 2019. First, the FDA sent Vanda a warning letter based on its review of the Company’s website, which it found, “false and misleading.” The website raised concerns because it allegedly failed to “disclose risks of Fanapt and Hetlioz in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.”

Then, on February 11, Aurelius Value published a report revealing “a previous unreported qui tam lawsuit which disclosed Vanda’s years of fraudulent promotion of Fanapt and Hetlioz.” The same report about the Company and lawsuit also disclosed Vanda’s alleged scheme to “defraud the government with fraudulent reimbursements.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 25 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a conference call held at the outset of the Class Period to discuss its third quarter 2015 earnings, Vanda said in pertinent part: “We are seeking to stabilize the Fanapt revenue with active commercial efforts.”

In another example, a form filed with the SEC on February 17, 2017 included certifications signed by the Individual Defendants in accordance with federal law. In the certifications, they attested to “the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on February 15, 2018, the Company discussed the “uses and marketing of Fanapt and Hetlioz,” stating in relevant part: “In January 2014, HETLIOZ was approved in the U.S. for the treatment of Non-24. Non-24 is a serious, rare and chronic circadian rhythm disorder characterized by the inability to entrain (synchronize) the master body clock with the 24-hour day-night cycle. HETLIOZ is the first FDA approved treatment for Non-24.”

On the same form, the Company also stated in pertinent part: “Fanapt is a product for the treatment of schizophrenia. In May 2009, the FDA granted U.S. marketing approval of Fanapt for the acute treatment of schizophrenia in adults.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$18.95
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$18.00
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

5.01%

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

 VNDA Class Action, VNDA Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 26, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

VNDA Class Action, VNDA Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


Aveo Pharmaceuticals Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce AVEO Lawsuit; AVEO Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 15, 2019

Hackel v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al 1:19-cv-01722-AT — On February 25, 2019, investors sued AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (“AVEO” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The AVEO class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired AVEO stock at artificially inflated prices between August 4, 2016 and January 31, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the AVEO lawsuit, please contact us today.

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: AVEO) is a biopharmaceutical company known as GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc., until it adopted its current name in 2005. As such, it says it is “dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need.”

To that end, AVEO has adopted a strategy in which it retains the rights to its “oncology portfolio” in North America while it engages in partnerships for the development and commercialization of its products elsewhere.

The Company’s lead product candidate is tivozanib or FOTIVDA®, which was created to treat advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (“RCC”). AVEO claims that it is approved in the European Union, as well as Norway and Iceland, for the first-line treatment of adult patients with RCC and related conditions.

AVEO’s statements about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of tivozanib and related issues are at the crux of the February 25 complaint.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out in a Boston Business Journal article published on January 31, 2019. In it, the Journal reported that, “AVEO would not submit its tivozanib application for FDA approval ‘due to a recommendation from the agency [to] gather more late-stage testing results. Specifically, the FDA is asking for additional survival data, echoing concerns that led to the agency’s rejection of the same drug in 2013.’”

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 25 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the outset of the Class Period, the Company stated in relevant part: “In May 2016, we initiated enrollment and treatment of patients in our new phase 3 trial of tivozanib in the third-line treatment of patients with refractory RCC. The TIVO-3 trial was designed to address the OS concerns from the TIVO-1 trial presented in the June 2013 complete response letter from the FDA and to support a request for the regulatory approval of tivozanib in the United States…”

On another form filed with the SEC on March 22, 2017, AVEO also stated in relevant part: “The TIVO-3 trial passed an initial safety data assessment in February 2017.”

Finally, on yet another form filed with the SEC on March 13, 2018, the Company stated in pertinent part: “The primary objective of the TIVO-3 trial is to show improved PFS. Secondary endpoints include OS, safety and ORR.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$1.77
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.70
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

60.45%

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

 aveo lawsuit, aveo class action lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 26, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

aveo lawsuit, aveo class action lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce CVS Class Action; CVS Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 14, 2019

Anarkat v. CVS Health Corporation, et al 1:19-cv-01725-AT — On February 25, 2019, investors sued CVS Health Corporation (“CVS Health” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the CVS class action allege that they acquired CVS Health stock at artificially inflated prices between May 21, 2015 and February 20, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the CVS Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: CVS) bills itself as the largest pharmacy health care provider in the United States.

As such, CVS Health says it has more than 9,800 retail locations in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Brazil. The Company also says CVS Pharmacy serves 5 million customers per day and that it has managed or filled 2.5 billion prescriptions. According to its website, CVS Health employs approximately 290,000 people

The Company is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, and its history dates to 1892. It was known as CVS Caremark Corporation until it adopted its current moniker in 2014.

In 2015, the Company acquired Omnicare, Inc., (“Omnicare”), a “provider of pharmaceuticals and related pharmacy services to long-term care facilities and a provider of specialty pharmacy and commercialization services for the bio-pharmaceutical industry.”

The Company’s claims and failure to disclose certain information about the acquisition are at the crux of the February 25 complaint.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of withholding truthful information about CVS Health’s financial condition and expected earnings from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused the Company’s stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out when the Company released its fourth quarter and full year financial and operating results on February 20, 2019. At that time, the Company also provided 2019 full year guidance. In that context CVS Health revealed that its adjusted earnings in 2019 would fall short of market estimates and cited “rising costs and poor results related to the Company’s 2015 acquisition of Omnicare.”

Fortune and The Motley Fool also published articles about the issue that day.

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 25 complaint, CVS Health and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release about the acquisition issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “With the acquisition of Omnicare, CVS Health will significantly expand its ability to dispense prescriptions in assisted living and long term care facilities, serving the senior patient population.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on February 9, 2016, the Company also discussed the Omnicare acquisition stating in relevant part: “On August 18, 2015, we completed our acquisition of Omnicare, broadening our base of pharmacy care to a new dispensing channel, long-term care pharmacy.”

The Company reiterated that statement on forms filed with the SEC on February 9, 2017 and February 14, 2018.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$69.88
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$64.22
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

8.10%

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

 CVS Class Action CVS Lawsuit 1

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 26, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

CVS Class Action CVS Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces TAP Lawsuit; TAP Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 6, 2019

Mathes v. Molson Coors Brewing Company et al 1:19-cv-01162 — On February 15, 2019, investors sued Molson Coors Brewing Company (“Molson Coors” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in the TAP class action allege that they acquired Molson Coors stock at artificially inflated prices between February 14, 2017 and February 11, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the TAP lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: TAP) is a globally recognized beverage business that makes and sells beer, among other types of drinks.

As such, Molson Coors boasts a history dating to the 18th century that has featured numerous mergers – including a few between industry giants – over the years. The Company’s current iteration is the result of a “merger of equals” between Molson and Coors in 2005, and several ensuing transactions.

According to its website, the Company ranked as the world’s third largest brewer as of 2016. Its products are sold in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out before the market opened on February 12, 2019. At that time, the Company announced that its “previously consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 should be restated and no longer be relied upon.”

In a more detailed explanation the Company also stated: “As part of preparing its 2018 financial statements, the Company identified errors in the accounting for income taxes related to the deferred tax liabilities for its partnership in MillerCoors, LLC (“MillerCoors”).

A closer look…

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

For example, a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class period stated that: “the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective, excluding the internal control over financial reporting at its recently acquired stake in MillerCoors LLC.”

Then, in certifications accompanying another form filed with the SEC on February 14, 2018, the Individual Defendants attested to “the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.”

On the same form, the Company stated that its internal control over financial reporting was “effective as of December 31, 2017.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$65.36
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$59.19
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

9.44%

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

 TAP Class Action TAP Lawsuit Molson Coors

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 16, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

TAP Class Action TAP Lawsuit Molson Coors

About Us

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

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

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


AVP Class Action AVP Lawsuit Avon

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces AVP Lawsuit; AVP Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

March 5, 2019

Bevinal v. Avon Products Inc., et al 1:19-cv-01420-CM — On February 14, 2019, investors sued Avon Products, Inc. (“Avon” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the AVP class action allege that they acquired Avon stock at artificially inflated prices between August 2, 2016 and August 2, 2017 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the AVP Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Avon (NYSE: AVP) makes and markets beauty products and related items, which are sold directly to its representatives. The Company’s representatives or associates then sell them to customers around the world.

According to its website, Avon boasts a ”network of millions of beauty entrepreneurs across the world.” These include part-time “beauty advisors,” who supplement their incomes by selling Avon products to people they know, and “full-time beauty entrepreneurs” who derive all of their income from selling the Company’s goods. In either case, they are classified as independent contractors rather than employees.

The Company divides its global operations by geographic region, namely: Europe, the Middle East and Africa, South Latin America, North Latin America, and Asia Pacific. As of 2016, the Company had sales operations in nearly 60 countries and territories.

According to the February 14 complaint, Brazil is the Company’s single largest market based on revenue and the number of sales representatives.

As also noted in the complaint, the Company also had more than 440 million shares outstanding as of November 2, 2018.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain accounting practices and methods for recruiting representatives in Brazil from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing soy, they allegedly caused Avon stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came when the Company issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2017 financial results and held related conference call on August 3, 2017. During the call, one of the Individual Defendants admitted that, contrary to its prior statements, “the remedial actions in Brazil [i.e., stricter credit terms applied to recruiting new representatives] were negatively impacting active representatives and revenue” there.

A closer look…

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

For instance, in a press release and related conference call held at the outset of the Class Period, the Company reported “an increase in new representatives in Brazil,” and attributed the increase to, “strong and consistent recruiting programs and onboarding of new representatives.” However, the Company did not disclose that in reality, it had “significantly loosened its credit terms in Brazil to recruit new representatives.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on November 3, 2016, Avon blamed an increase in bad debt to “the macroeconomic environment in Brazil,” rather than the changes it made to credit terms in order to recruit representatives and “boost revenue” there.

Finally, on a February 16, 2017, conference call held to discuss the Company’s fourth quarter 2016 results, one of the Individual Defendants acknowledged the true cause of the bad debt, and said planned corrective actions could have an adverse affect on “New representative growth.

Although Avon’s stock price fell following the revelation, the Company allegedly made positive and therefore misleading, statements that “the Brazil bad debt had been fully accounted for in the fourth quarter” to halt the losses.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$3.36
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$3.00
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

10.71%

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

 AVP Lawsuit, AVP Class Action Avon

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 15, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

AVP Class Action AVP Lawsuit Avon

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces LXRX Lawsuit; LXRX Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 22, 2019

Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al 4:19-cv-00301 — On January 28, 2019, investors sued Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lexicon” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The LXRX class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Lexicon stock at artificially inflated prices between March 11, 2016 and January 17, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the LXRX lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: LXRX) is a self-described “fully integrated biopharmaceutical company.”

As such, Lexicon says it “is applying a unique approach to gene science based on Nobel Prize-winning technology to discover and develop precise medicines for people with serious, chronic conditions.”

As detailed in the January 28 complaint, Lexicon teamed up with Sanofi S.A. (“Sanofi”), a French multinational pharmaceutical company, in November 2015. The Company did so to further the global development, promotion and commercialization of one of its “orally-delivered small molecule drug candidates.”

The deal granted Sanofi “exclusive, worldwide royalty-bearing rights and license to develop, manufacture and commercialize Sotagliflozin.” Meanwhile, Lexicon, which is “responsible for all clinical development activities relating to type 1 diabetes,” retained “an exclusive option to co-promote and have a significant role, in collaboration with Sanofi, in the commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the United States.”

Claims made about Sotagliflozin, which was renamed Zynquista for commercial purposes, are at the crux of the January 28 complaint.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired between on January 17 and January 18, 2019. First, Lexicon announced that, “the Advisory Committee had ‘voted eight to eight on the question of whether the overall benefits of [Lexicon’s product] Zynquista (Sotagliflozin) outweighed the risks to support approval…’”

Then, in a Motley Fool article detailing the FDA Advisory Committee’s deadlock published the next day raised additional concerns, saying in pertinent part: “The impasse means investors have no way of knowing the path forward for the drug candidate.”

A closer look…

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

For instance, in an annual report filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “ Data from the [Phase 2] study showed that treatment with sotagliflozin demonstrated statistically significant benefits in the primary and multiple secondary endpoints.”

Then, in another annual report filed with the SEC on March 6, 2017, Lexicon also said that it had “reported positive top-line primary efficacy endpoint data from two pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials of sotagliflozin in type 1 diabetes patients.”

Finally, in another annual report filed with the SEC on March 1, 2018, Lexicon used only generic language to describe the “risk that an NDA  [New Drug Application] could fail to meet FDA regulatory hurdles, saying: “There can be no assurance that the FDA will accept an NDA for filing and, even if accepted for filing, that approval will be granted.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$7.70
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$5.96
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

22.59%

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

 LXRX Class Action LXRX Lawsuit Lexicon Pharmaceuticals

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

LXRX Class Action LXRX Lawsuit Lexicon Pharmaceuticals

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces GE Lawsuit; GE Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 21, 2019

Birnbaum v. General Electric Company et al 1:19-cv-01013 — On February 1, 2019, investors sued General Electric Company (“GE” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the GE class action allege that they acquired GE stock at artificially inflated prices between October 12, 2018 and October 29, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the GE Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: GE) bills itself as a “digital industrial company,” with a history that spans more than 100 years.

As such, GE has numerous divisions, including its Industrials segment. GE Power is the Company’s largest business within this segment and creates one-third of global energy. The Company also says that the vast majority of all global power transmission utilities are equipped with GE Power’s technology and that its software manages 40 percent of the world’s energy.

Finally, the Company says that its acquisition of Alstom’s Thermal Power in 2015 has allowed it to provide “even more innovative technologies” to expand its reach and help more people.

Summary of Facts

GE and its CEO/chairman (the “Individual Defendant”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class period.

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

The truth came out when the Company filed its “2018 third quarter form 10-Q” with the SEC on October 30, 2018. In it, GE finally disclosed the full extent of the investigation into its accounting practices. It said in pertinent part: “Following our announcement on October 1, 2018 about the expected non-cash goodwill impairment charge related to GE’s Power business… the SEC expanded the scope of its investigation to include that charge as well.” GE also announced that “[s]taff from the DOJ are also investigating these matters.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the February 1 complaint, GE made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated that it was “delaying its third quarter 2018 financial results until October 30, 2018.” At the time it said it was doing so to “allow GE Chairman and CEO Larry Culp to complete initial business reviews and site visits following his appointment on October 1.”

In the same press release, the Company also stated that Culp would “share his initial observations, with more detail expected in early 2019.”

What the Company had an obligation to share but failed to disclose was that: the SEC had expanded its investigation into its accounting practices; that the SEC was investigating the GE Power charge; that the DOJ was also investigating GE’s accounting practices, including the GE Power charge. The Company also failed to disclose the potential consequences based on the results.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$11.16
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$10.18
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

8.78%

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

 

GE Lawsuit GE Class Action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 2, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

 

GE Class Action GE Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Investigates RVLT Lawsuit; RVLT Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 15, 2019

Glavan v. Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc., et al 1:19-cv-000980 — On January 31, 2019, investors sued Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc. (“Revolution Lighting” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the RVLT class action allege that they acquired Revolution Lighting stock at artificially inflated prices between March 14, 2014 and November 14, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the RVLT class action, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: RVLT) is engaged in the provision of LED lighting for customers in “industrial, commercial and government markets in the United States, Canada, and internationally.”

Specifically, Revolution Lighting says it “designs, engineers and manufactures an extensive line of high-quality interior and exterior LED lamps and fixtures, including signage and control systems.” The Company also says that it markets and distributes its products “markets and distributes its products through a network of regional and national independent sales representatives and distributors, as well as through energy savings companies and national accounts.”

The Company is incorporated in Delaware and based in Stamford, Connecticut.

Summary of Facts

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

In particular, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the recognition of revenue for certain transactions; the efficacy of its internal controls over financial reporting; and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Revolution Lighting stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that transpired between October 17, 2018 and November 14, 2018. First, the Company released its preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2018, which fell well short of expectations. Then, on October 19, 2018, Revolution Lighting announced “an ongoing investigation by the SEC regarding certain revenue recognition practices including bill and hold transactions that occurred between 2014 and the second quarter of 2018.” Finally, on November 14, the Company announced that its Transaction Committee was considering the CEO’s “updated proposal” to take the Company private, and cited the SEC investigation as part of his reason for wanting to do so.

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 31 complaint, Revolution Lighting and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in an annual report filed with the SEC at the outset of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “We recognize revenue for our products upon shipment or delivery to customers in accordance with respective contractual arrangements, provided no significant obligations remain and collection is probable.”

The same report included certifications signed by two of the Individual Defendants attesting that “the financial information contained therein was accurate and that it disclosed any material changes to the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.”

Then, in a quarterly report filed with the SEC on May 12, 2014, the Company stated in relevant part: “During the second quarter of 2014, the Company implemented new accounting systems and related modifications of processes and controls at its Relume and Lumificient subsidiaries.”

Finally, in a quarterly report filed with the SEC on November 5, 2015, Revolution Lighting again referred to its revenue recognition, stating in pertinent part: “The Company recognizes revenue from fixed-price and modified fixed-price contracts for turnkey energy conservation projects using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$1.40
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.85
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

39.28%

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

 rvlt lawsuit rvlt class action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 1, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

rvlt class action rvlt lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce GSM Lawsuit; GSM Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 13, 2019

Treankler v. Ferroglobe PLC et al 1:19-cv-00629-RA — On January 22, 2019, investors sued Ferroglobe PLC (“Ferroglobe” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The GSM class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Ferroglobe stock at artificially inflated prices between August 21, 2018 and November 26, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the GSM lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Ferroglobe (NASDAQ: GSM) is now among “the largest producers of a wide variety of metal alloys and other metallic products.”

As such, Ferroglobe says it relies on state-of-the-art-technology to provide the best products, “which are critical ingredients in many industrial and consumer products.” The Company claims that taking this approach put it “at the forefront of silicon-based alloys production, but also provide manganese, ferrosilicon alloys and silica fume among others.”

In all, the Company has four business divisions or segments, and operations in Spain, United States, France, Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Venezuela and China. Most of its customers are engaged in some sort of manufacturing or production.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out on November 26, 2018, when the Company reported “poor financial results” for the third quarter 2018. One of the Individual Defendants then attributed the lackluster results to “market conditions in our main products [that] deteriorated through Q3.”

On a conference call held to discuss the financial results with analysts the next day, the same Individual Defendant stated that “the most significant driver of the Q3 results was reduced pricing, specifically average sales price for silicon metal declined 4.9% versus Q2 2018 [due to] silicon production at high rates, the impact of customers stocking up in anticipation of the trade case, and “availability of aluminum scrap.” He also stated that the sales of silicon metal “were impacted by the availability of aluminum scrap, which is now burdened by a 25% tariff on imports from the U.S. into China.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 22 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the one of the Individual Defendants stated in pertinent part: “Prices of our products have remained broadly stable overall, and current supply/demand dynamics in our industry should support continued healthy pricing.”

Then, during a conference call with analysts held on August 22, 2018, the same person also stated in pertinent part: “despite some pricing declines in the U.S. an in European indices, Ferroglobe maintained a flat realized average selling price for silicon metal, reflecting a well-managed commercial strategy and a good mix of fixed and index price contracts.”

On the same conference call, the same person added: “the overall supply/demand tension in the market, as we as increasing input costs, provide good reason to expect prices [of silicon metal] to remain broadly stable around these levels.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$4.77
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$1.80
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

62.26%

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

 GSM Class Action GSM Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 25, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

GSM Class Action GSM Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces TYME Lawsuit; TYME Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 12, 2019

Canas v. Tyme Technologies, Inc., et al 1:19-cv-00843-RA — On January 28, 2019, investors sued Tyme Technologies, Inc. (“Tyme” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the TYME class action allege that they acquired Tyme stock at artificially inflated prices between March 14, 2018 and January 18, 2019 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the TYME lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Tyme (NASDAQ: TYME) is a clinical-stage biotechnology company engaged in the development of cancer treatments “that are intended to be broadly effective across a range of tumor types, while maintaining patient’s quality of life with relatively low toxicity profiles.”

The Company, which has been in business since 2011 says its “therapeutic approach” differs from that employed by other biotech companies. Specifically, Tyme says its approach “is designed to take advantage of a cancer cell’s innate metabolic requirements to compromise its defenses, leading to cell death and exposure to the body’s immune system.”

The Company also says its lead product candidate, SM-88, is an oral amino acid-based therapy with a profile that is backed by more than five years of clinical data in more than 100 cancer patients in which the disease has spread. Tyme’s claims about SM-88 are at the crux of the January 28 complaint.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the status of a Phase II clinical trial for SM-88 from SEC filings and related information. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Tyme stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired on January 18, 2019. First, the Company reported results from the Phase II study, which it characterized as “positive.” In doing so, however, the Company revealed that the trial did not include a control group and that its announcement “merely compared survival data to historical controls.”

In an article assessing the situation published that day, The Motley Fool noted: “The problem with historical controls is that it’s really hard to know if the 14 patients have the same characteristics as the patients who were in the previous clinical trials. And even if the patients were fairly similar, the history of best standard of care has generally improved over time, so historical controls has typically gotten better for most types of cancer.”

A closer look…

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

For example, in a press release issued on April 9, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants “touted the Company’s recent success” and stated in relevant part: “We are now fully focused on successfully achieving multiple data milestones over the next 12 months.”

Then, in another press release issued on June 12, 2018, the same Individual Defendant also said in pertinent part: “We are highly encouraged by the data with SM-88 from these studies in terms of the apparent safety and efficacy shown by the drug, as well as the breadth of cancer indications for which responses were observed…”

Finally, an annual report filed with the SEC on June 13, 2018, contained only generic, standard language pertaining to the Company’s “lack of experience completing Phase II clinical trials or commercializing pharmaceutical products. It simply stated: “We have no history of completing large-scale, pivotal Phase II or III clinical trials or commercializing pharmaceutical products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$3.73
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$2.41
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

35.39%

The following chart illustrates the stock price during the Class Period

 TYME Class Action TYME Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 29, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

TYME Lawsuit, TYME Class Action

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces XXII Lawsuit; XXII Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

February 11, 2019

Bull v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., et al 1:19-cv-00409-NGG-ST — On January 21, 2019, investors sued 22nd Century Group, Inc., (“22nd Century” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The XXII class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired 22nd Century stock at artificially inflated prices between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more about the XXII Lawsuit, please contact us today.

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (NYSE:XXII) engages in “the research, development, licensing, manufacturing, and worldwide sales and distribution” of tobacco varying nicotine levels.

Specifically, the Company claims that it can produce tobacco “with up to 97% less nicotine than conventional tobacco – as well as plants with relatively high nicotine levels.”

The Company’s history dates to 1998, when Joseph Pandolfino founded it “to provide funding to North Carolina State University (NCSU) for a research and development collaboration on nicotine biosynthesis in the tobacco plant.”

In ensuing years, the Company developed its proprietary technology and continued its research with several partners. 22nd Century became a publicly traded company in 2011 and formed a partnership with British American Tobacco (“BAT”). However, 22nd Century’s partnership with BAT ended in 2017.

Summary of Facts

22nd Century and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the susceptibility of its stock to certain types of manipulation from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused 22nd Century stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired on February 2, 2018 and  October 25, 2018. In the first instance, a Seeking Alpha contributor, Fuzzy Panda Research, stated that the Company used a “years’ long ‘rampant paid stock promotion’ scheme to inflate 22nd Century’s share price.” The article also noted that “the sponsors of some of the articles from 2014 through 2017 were undisclosed.”

Then, on October 25, another Seeking Alpha published another article by the same contributor “suggested the SEC is actively investigating 22nd Century Group for its involvement in a potential pump and dump scheme.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the January 21 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated that its “stock price was subject to volatility, but failed to disclose its stock could experience volatility due to manipulation.”

Another form filed with the SEC on March 8, 2017, also included certifications signed by the Individual Defendants in accordance with federal law “attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud

Finally, on another form filed with the SEC on March 7, 2018, the Company reiterated that its “stock price was subject to volatility, but failed to disclose its stock could experience volatility due to manipulation.”

Impact of the Alleged Fraud on 22nd Century’s Stock Price and Market Capitalization

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$2.56
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$2.45
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

                 4.29%

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

 XXII Class Action XXII Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

In order to identify your potential exposure to the alleged fraud during the time in question, you may wish to perform an analysis of your transactions in 22nd Century common stock using court approved loss calculation methods.

Recently Filed Cases

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

XXII Class Action XXII Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Investigates LHSIF Lawsuit; LHSIF Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

January 31, 2019

Lin v. Liberty Health Sciences, Inc., et al 1:19-cv-00161-LTS — On January 7, 2019, investors sued Liberty Health Sciences, Inc. (“Liberty” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Liberty stock at artificially inflated prices between June 28, 2018 and December 3, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more on the LHSIF Lawsuit, contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (OTC: LHSIF) was launched to acquire and operate U.S. – based companies in the medical cannabis market.”

As such, the Company says it, “adds value to acquired companies” through its expertise in the field and through its proprietary processes. Today, it is primarily engaged in the “production and distribution of medical cannabis through its wholly-owned subsidiary, DFMMJ LLC,” or Liberty Health Sciences, Ltd.

As set forth in the January 7 complaint, Liberty also has “longstanding ties” with Aphria, Inc., another cannabis distributor and producer. Specifically, the complaint notes that Aphria CEO and co-founder Victor Neufield also became the chairman of Liberty; and that Aphria co-founder and chief agronomist Cole Cacciavillanii also joined Liberty as an executive. As a result, the complaint alleges, “Liberty was heavily influenced by Aphria and individuals involved in the management of Aphria.”

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth emerged in a series of events that began when Aphria announced that it had “sold off its stake in Liberty” in September 2018, and continued in December 2018. On December 3, 2018, Quintessential Capital Management and Hindenburg Research issued a report accusing Aphria of being a participant in a scheme “involving the acquisition of shell companies at artificially inflated prices.”

Then, on December 6, 2018, the mainstream media followed up on a second report issued by Hindenburg Research. Specifically, the Windsor Star published an article detailing Aphria’s ties to Liberty and related allegations.

A closer look…

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

For example, in an Annual Information Form (the “2018 AIF) released on June 28, 2018, the Company detailed an Investor Rights Agreement, stating in pertinent part: “Concurrently with the completion of the Business Combination, Liberty entered into an investor rights agreement (the “Investor Rights Agreement”) pursuant to which, among other things, Aphria is entitled to certain director nomination and pre-emptive rights.”

In the 2018 AIF, Liberty also detailed its relationship with the Serruya family, which “holds a large stake in both Liberty and Aphria.” Within this context, the Company stated in pertinent part: “On February 5, 2018, it was announced that a group of buyers led by members of the Serruya family had entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Aphria to purchase all of the Common Shares in the Company owned by Aphria that are not subject to CSE escrow requirements over the course of the next two and a half years.”

Finally, in a document called Management’s Discussion & Analysis (the “2018 MD&A”) also issued on the same day, the Company included examples of “Liberty and Aphria’s commingling interests in acquiring other businesses.” In this context Liberty stated in relevant part: “In February 2018, the Company entered into a definitive agreement with Aphria Inc. (“Aphria”) to acquire Aphria’s minority interests in Copperstate Farms, LLC and Copperstate Farms Investors, LLC (collectively, “Copperstate”), through a purchase of Aphria’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Aphria (Arizona) Inc., for a purchase price of $20.0 million.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$1.06
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.70
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

33.96%

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

 LHSIF Lawsuit; LHSIF Class Action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 8, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

LHSIF Class Action LHSIF Lawsuit

 

About Us

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

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

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


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Investigate AXGN Lawsuit; AXGN Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Einhorn v. AxoGen, Inc., et al 8:19-cv-00069-EAK-AAS — On January 9, 2019, investors sued AxoGen, Inc., (“AxoGen” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida. The AXGN class action alleges that Plaintiffs acquired AxoGen stock at artificially inflated prices between August 7, 2017 and December 18, 2018 (the “Class Period”); or in connection with the Company’s November 2017 or May 2018 SPOs. They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the AXGN Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, AxoGen (NASDAQ: AXGN) is “the leading company focused specifically on the science, development and commercialization of technologies for peripheral nerve regeneration and repair.”

As such, it creates and provides “products and technologies” that are “designed to overcome fundamental challenges in nerve reconstruction and offer off-the-shelf solutions to surgeons for a wide variety of peripheral nerve damage.” AxoGen say reconstructive plastic surgeons, hand surgeons and oral and maxillofacial surgeons use its products “in a wide variety of nerve repair surgeries.”

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about AxoGen’s sales and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused the Company’s stock to traded at artificially prices during the time in question.

Along with the Individual Defendants, one senior officer and seven directors who either signed or authorized the signing of allegedly false and misleading Registration Statements for the SPOs; and five companies that served as underwriters for the SPOs are named as defendants in the January 9 complaint.

The truth came in a report issued by Seligman Investments on December 18, 2018. Among other things, the report included statements that: ”former employees allege channel stuffing and backdating of revenue, that the number of active accounts may be overstated by a factor of ten, that the Company’s ‘growth [i]s driven by unsustainable, aggressive price increases,’ [and] ‘that the payments to physicians relative to revenue ‘creates elevated risks relating to pay-to-play and anti-kickback laws.’”

A closer look…

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

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in relevant part: “…revenue growth is primarily due to increased purchases from active accounts, followed by revenue growth from new accounts.”

Then, in its November 2017 Registration Statement, AxoGen addressed product pricing, saying in relevant part: “AxoGen’s operating results will be harmed if it is unable to effectively manage and sustain its future growth or scale its operations.”

Finally, in its November 2017 Registration Statement, AxoGen also addressed its customers dependence on reimbursements, saying in pertinent part: “AxoGen’s revenues depend upon prompt and adequate reimbursement from public- and private insurers and national health systems.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$27.53
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$21.36
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

22.41%

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

 AXGN Lawsuit; AXGN Class Action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 11, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

AXGN Class Action AXGN Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Investigate DNKEY Lawsuit; DNKEY Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund v. Danske Bank A/S et al 1:19-cv-00235-VEC — On January 9, 2019, investors sued Danske Bank A/S (“Danske Bank” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the DNKEY class action allege that they acquired Danske Bank’s American Depository Receipts (ADRs) at artificially inflated prices between January 9, 2014 and October 23, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more on the DNKEY lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Danske Bank (OTC: DNKEY) is a “Nordic bank with strong local roots and bridges to the rest of the world.”

The Company’s history dates to the founding of Den Danske Landmandsbank in 1871. Throughout its existence, the Company strengthened its business by merging with “many local and regional banks.” In 1990, Danske Bank became the largest bank in Denmark by merging with two other “major Danish banks.”

As such, the Company says, it provides personal and commercial banking services to its customers. Additional services provided by the Company include life insurance and pension, mortgage credit, wealth management, real estate and leasing.

In all, Danske Bank now has operations in 16 countries. It also has more than 200 branches and more than 20,000 employees. Collectively they serve 2.8 million personal and business customers and more than 1,800 corporate and institutional customers.

Today, Danske Bank identifies its “core markets” as Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. However, the Company’s failure to fully disclose the extent of alleged criminal conduct at its Estonian branch is at the crux of the January 9 complaint.

Summary of Facts

Danske Bank and four of its former officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they stand accused of omitting truthful information about the nature of certain activities at Danske Bank’s Estonian branch, their knowledge of such activities, and ancillary matters from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Danske Bank’s ADRs to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of news reports, press releases, social media posts and announcements made or issued between September 5, 2017, and October 23, 2018. Collectively, these revelations chronicled the extent of alleged money laundering at Danske Bank’s Estonia branch; the investigation of said activity; how much certain Danske Bank executives knew about it; the resignation of certain Company executives; and more.

A closer look…

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

For example, in an Annual Report published on February 6, 2014, the Company discussed its Estonian branch, saying in relevant part: “At the beginning of 2007, Danske Bank acquired the Baltic activities of the Sampo Bank group. The activities form part of the business structure of Danske Bank Group. With the acquisition, the Group established a presence in the Baltic markets, primarily in Estonia and to a lesser extent, in Lithuania. Only the goodwill allocated to the Estonian operations remains capitalised. In 2013, goodwill in Banking Activities Baltics was reallocated to Business Banking Estonia as a result of the new organizational structure.”

Then, in another Annual Report published on February 3, 2015, the Company again discussed its Estonian branch, saying in pertinent part: “In 2014, the Group recognized a goodwill impairment corresponding to the full amount of the goodwill owing to a worsening of the long-term economic outlook in Estonia and the planned repositioning of the personal banking business in 2015.”

Finally, in another Annual Report published on February 2, 2016, the Company attributed positive financial results to its “purported ongoing operational and strategic prowess, rather than to the money laundering the whistleblower had already disclosed to Danske Bank’s senior executives during 2013.”

Specifically, one of the Individual Defendants then said in pertinent part: “In 2015, Danske Bank continued to progress and delivered strong results despite a challenging environment. The results are a testament to the strength of our diversified business model as a Nordic universal bank and reflect our firm focus on executing our strategy of becoming a more customer-centric, simple and efficient bank…”

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

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

 DNKEY Lawsuit DNKEY Class Action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 11, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

DNKEY Class Action DNKEY Lawsuit

 

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces NVFY Lawsuit; NVFY Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

January 23, 2019

Barney v. Nova Lifestyle, Inc., et al 2:18-cv-10725-AB-AFM — On December 28, 2018, investors sued Nova Lifestyle, Inc., (“Nova Lifestyle” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California. The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Nova Lifestyle stock at artificially inflated prices between December 3, 2015 and December 20, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the NVFY Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (NASDAQ: NVFY) designs and makes furniture including “sofas, dining room sets, cabinets, office furniture and related components, bedroom sets, and various accessories in matching collections.”

The Company says that its products, which are made in the United States, Europe and Asia, “include lifestyle brands such as Diamond Sofa, Nova QwiK, and Bright Swallow International.” Nova Lifestyle also says its designs target “style-conscious middle and upper middle-income consumers in the U.S., China, Europe, and elsewhere in the world.”

Nova Lifestyle is incorporated in Nevada and its headquarters is located in Commerce, California.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they stand accused of omitting truthful information about an alleged  “strategic alliance,” and the reporting of inflated sales from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Nova Lifestyle stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on December 21, 2018. That day, Andri Capital issued a report on Seeking Alpha stating that, “Nova Lifestyle’s revenues in 2016 and 2017 were overstated because the Company booked sales to a dissolved and nonexistent company.” The report also indicated that, “Nova Lifestyle’s purported strategic alliance with Shanxi Wanqing was meant to deceive investors as Shanxi Wanqing was a sham company.”

A closer look…

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

For instance, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company discussed its “strategic alliance agreement with (China) Shanxi Wanqing Senior Care Service Group.” In this context, it said in pertinent part: “Shanxi Wanqing plans to invest a total amount of 3.0 billion RMB (USD $460 Million) to build a major senior care center in Luoyang, Henan province in China, and Nova LifeStyle will operate as the lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in the complex.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on April 14, 2017, the Company stated in relevant part: “Our largest customers in 2016 were Shanxi Wanqing Senior Care Service, Group and Actona Company A/S, a global furniture distributor, which accounted for 10.8% and 9.7% of our total sales in 2016, respectively.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on March 29, 2018, Nova Lifestyle also stated in relevant part: “Our largest customers in 2017 were Merlino Lewis LLP, Shanxi Wanqing Senior Care Service, and Home Centre LLC, which accounted for 24.3%, 13.7% and 11.5% of our total sales in 2017, respectively.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$0.77
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

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

 

40.23%

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

NVFY Class Action NVFY Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

NVFY Lawsuit NVFY Class Action

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces ALKS Lawsuit; ALKS Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Karimian v. Alkermes Public Limited Company et al 1:18-cv-07410-LDH-SMG — On December 27, 2018, investors sued Alkermes Public Limited Company (“Alkermes” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The ALKS class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Alkermes stock at artificially inflated prices between February 17, 2017 and November 1, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the ALKS Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Incorporated in Ireland, Alkermes (NASDAQ: ALKS) is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the research, development and marketing of pharmaceutical products.

According to its website, the Company “is uniquely positioned to be an engine of innovative treatments for major clinical conditions specifically focused on central nervous system (CNS) disorders.” These maladies include schizophrenia, depression, addiction and multiple sclerosis.

The Company’s U.S. facilities are located in Waltham, Massachusetts and Wilmington, Ohio.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired between April 2, 2018 and November 1, 2018. First, the Company disclosed that it had received a “Refusal to File” letter from the FDA in connection with one of its products known as ALKS 5461. Then, on October 30, 2018, the FDA released a “briefing document,” in which it indicated that it “did not agree with Alkermes’ methodologies and that Alkermes disregarded the FDA’s advice.”

Finally, Alkermes announced, “that the FDA advisory committee voted 21 to 2 against the approval of ALKS 5461.” On the same day, November 1, 2018, Xconomy reported that, “[a]t the hearing, FDA representatives said the agency specifically told Alkermes not to analyze its data through an average, which it did.”

A closer look…

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

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, Alkermes said in pertinent part: “Based on the results of FORWARD-5, the supportive evidence from FORWARD-4 and the successful phase 2 study of ALKS 5461, we recently met with the FDA’s Division of Psychiatric Products at a Type C meeting to discuss ALKS 5461. We will request a pre-NDA meeting with the FDA and plan to submit the New Drug Application (‘NDA’) for ALKS 5461 in the second half of 2017.”

Then, on January 31, 2018, the Company announced its submission of an NDA that would allow ALKS 5461 to be used in the treatment of major depressive disorder (“MDD”). In that context, Alkermes said in pertinent part: “Throughout the clinical development program, ALKS 5461 demonstrated a consistent profile o antidepressant activity, safety and tolerability in the adjunctive treatment of MDD.”

Finally, on another form filed with the SEC on July 26, 2018, the Company stated in relevant part: “Our NDA for ALKS 5461 was submitted to the FDA in January 2018 and accepted by the FDA for review in April 2018. Acceptance of the NDA for review followed FDA issuance, and then rescission, of a refusal to file letter citing insufficient evidence of effectiveness and the need for additional bridging data, both of which we expect will be addressed in the context of the FDA’s review. The NDA is based on a clinical efficacy and safety package with data from more than 30 clinical trials and more than 1,500 patients with MDD.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$40.83
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$37.74
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

7.57%

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

 

ALKS Lawsuit ALKS Class Action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 25, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

Listed below are recently filed securities class action cases being monitored by us, along with the class period and the deadline to file a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.

Please contact us if you would like an LK report for any of these cases:

ALKS Lawsuit ALKS Class Action

About Us

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

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

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


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces NVDA Lawsuit; NVDA Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

January 17, 2019

Case Introduction Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds v. NVIDIA Corporation et al 1:18-cv-7669 — On December 21, 2018, investors sued NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the NVDA class action allege that they acquired NVIDIA stock at artificially inflated prices between August 10, 2017 and November 15, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the NVDA lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: NVDA) is engaged in the design, development and marketing of graphics processing units (“GPUs”) and ancillary software. In this capacity, NVIDIA provides GPUs for uses ranging from computer gaming to cryptocurrency mining.

NVIDIA’s history dates to 1993. Within two years, the Company formed its first meaningful partnership and launched its first product. However, 1999 proved to be the most significant year in the young Company’s history as it “invented” the GPU, and introduced the QUADRO GPU for professional graphics.  In that same year, it announced its initial public offering at $12 per share.

According to the December 21 complaint, there were more than 600 million NVIDIA shares, held by “at least hundreds or thousands of investors” outstanding as of November 9, 2018.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out in a series of events that transpired on August 16, 2018 and November 15, 2018. First, the Company “lowered its revenue guidance by about 2.2% for the third quarter of 2018 and reported that it no longer expects a meaningful contribution from cryptocurrency miners for the reminder of the year.” On the same day, NVIDIA also reported that, “its GPU inventory had ballooned by over 30% from the prior quarter, which investors feared could be a sign of slowing demand” for its GPUs.

Then, on November 15, 2018, the Company “significantly cuts its revenue guidance for the fiscal fourth quarter, revealing that revenue would actually decline by over 7%in the quarter – a significant departure from the 17% growth investors had been led to expect.” At the time, the Company attributed the disappointing results to “surging inventory of midrange GPUs that built up before the rapid fade of cryptocurrency mining,” which resulted in greater scrutiny and criticism from analysts.

A closer look…

As alleged in the December 21 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants attributed revenue growth in the second fiscal quarter of 2017 to several factors. These included dramatic increases in data center revenue; the use of NVIDIA’s DRIVE PX self-driving computing platform by “a growing number of car and robot-taxi companies”; and growth of gaming platforms powered by the Company’s GPUs.”

Then on a conference call with analysts and investors held on November 9, 2017, one of the Individual Defendants “downplayed the importance of cryptocurrency mining on NVIDIA’s growth,” saying in pertinent part: “when you think about crypto in the context of our company overall, the thing to remember is that we’re the largest GPU computing company in the world. And our overall GPU business is really sizable and we have multiple segments.”

Finally, at an industry conference held February 26, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants “also continued to assure investors that cryptocurrency minders would not impact sales of GPUs to gaming customers, stating in relevant part: “we do believe we can serve [cryptocurrency miners] primarily with those specialized cards and that’s going to be our goal going forward.” Within this context, the same person added: “we’re going to really try our hardest to really focus our overall GPUs for gaming for overall gamers going forward.”

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

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

NVDA Class Action, NVDA Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 19, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

NVDA Class Action, NVDA Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces AGN Lawsuit; AGN Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Cook v. Allergan PLC et al 1:18-cv-12089 — On December 21, 2018, investors sued Allergan plc. (“Allergan” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the AGN class action allege that they acquired Allergan stock between May 9, 2017 and December 19, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the AGN Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Allergan (NYSE: AGN) is a “bold, global pharmaceutical company.”

As such, the Company focuses on the development, manufacturing, development and marketing of “branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients around the world.” Specifically, the Company says it markets “portfolio of leading brands and best-in-class products” for use in the treatment of ailments affecting the central nervous system, eye care, cosmetic surgery and dermatology, gastroenterology, women’s health, urology and anti-infective therapeutic categories.

In all, Allergan says it has 17,000 employees and a presence in approximately 100 countries.

According to the December 21 complaint, more than 345 million shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of failing to disclose truthful information about the status of Allergan’s textured breast implants and tissue expanders during quarterly earnings calls. By knowingly or deliberately doing so, they allegedly caused Allergan stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on December 19, 2018, when the Company announced that it had halted the sale of its textured breast implants and tissue expanders and “was withdrawing all remaining supplies from European markets.”

According to the December 21 complaint, the withdrawal “followed a compulsory recall request from the Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament (“ANSM”), the French regulatory authority.”  The suspension of sales “stemmed directly from the expiration of the Company’s CE Mark for these products.”

A closer look…

As also alleged in the December 21 complaint, Allergan and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, during a conference call held at the beginning of the Class Period to discuss the Company’s quarterly earnings, one of the Individual Defendants bragged about “the Company’s progress in securing ‘major pharma and device approvals.’” The same person also bragged that Allergan had “additional indications for [its] breast implants and fillers.”

Then, during another earnings call held on February 6, 2018, a different Individual Defendant said in relevant part: “In Plastics and Regenerative Medicine, fourth quarter U.S. sales were exceptionally strong, up 15% on a pro forma basis versus last year. Growth in this segment has been driven primarily by ALLODERM, our tissue matrix for breast reconstruction, which is exceeding expectations; and market share gains for our 2 new INSPIRA breast implants.”

Finally, on another earnings call held on July 26, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants said in relevant part: “In Plastics and Regenerative Medicine, ALLODERM, our tissue matrix for breast reconstruction, continues to exceed expectations. ALLODERM sales were up 26%. This product is becoming part of the standard care in reconstructive surgeries.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$146.76
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$136.56
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6.95%

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

AGN Class Action AGN Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 19, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

AGN Lawsuit AGN Class Action

About Us

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

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

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


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

TS Class Action; Levi & Korsinsky Announce TS Lawsuit, Tenaris Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

January 8, 2019

Atanasio v. Tenaris S.A. et al 1:18-cv-07059 — On December 12, 2018, investors sued Tenaris S.A. (“Tenaris” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The TS class action alleges that the plaintiffs acquired Tenaris stock at artificially inflated prices between May 1, 2014 and November 27, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the Tenaris Lawsuit (TS Lawsuit), please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Tenaris (NYSE: TS) is “a leading supplier of tubes and related services for the world’s energy industry and certain other industrial applications.”

The Company says its customers are some  “of the world’s leading oil and gas companies as well as engineering companies engaged in constructing oil and gas gathering, transportation and processing facilities.” Its core products include casing, tubing, line pipe, and mechanical and structural pipes.

In all, Tenaris has manufacturing facilities in 16 countries and research and development facilities on four continents. It also has service and distribution centers is more than 25 countries.

The Company’s history dates to 1948, when Siderca was established in Argentina. Tenaris expanded its Argentine operations in the 1980s and gradually grew into a global business “through a series of strategic investments.”

According to the December 12 complaint, Tenaris has a “significant investment in Ternium S.A.” Specifically, the Company held more than 11% of Ternium’s share capital (including treasury shares) as of December 31, 2017.

As also set forth in the December 12 complaint, the 2005 consolidation of Siderar of Argentina, Sidor of Venezuela and Hylsa of Mexico resulted in the creation of Ternium. However, Venezuela ordered the transformation of Sidor, a Venezuelan steel company, into a state-owned enterprise in 2008.

Finally, on May 7 2009, Ternium sold its majority stake (59.7%) in Sidor to Corporación Venezolana de Guayana, or CVG, “a Venezuelan state-owned entity.” Although Ternium accepted $1.97 billion USD for the sale of its interest, it took several years to get the money.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about a certain executive’s conduct and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Tenaris stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came in a report published by Bloomberg on November 27, 2018. In it, Bloomberg revealed that Tenaris Chairman and CEO Paolo Rocca (one of the Individual Defendants named in the December 12 complaint) “was indicted for his role in a graft scheme.”

A closer look…

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

For example, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated that it was: “committed to conducting business in a legal and ethical manner in compliance with local and international statutory requirements and standards.”

On another form filed with the SEC on June 1, 2015, the Company referred to its Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct, stating in pertinent part:

“In addition to the general code of conduct incorporating guidelines and standards of integrity and transparency applicable to all of our directors, officers and employees, we have adopted a code of ethics for financial officers which applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions and is intended to supplement the Company’s Code of Conduct.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$27.00
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$24.36
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

9.77%

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

 TS Lawsuit TS Class Action Tenaris Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 11, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

TS Lawsuit TS Class Action Tenaris Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

TDOC Class Action; Levi & Korsinsky Announces TDOC Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-11603-GHW — On December 12, 2018, investors sued Teladoc Health, Inc., (“Teladoc” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The TDOC class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Teladoc stock at artificially inflated prices between March 3, 2016 and December 5, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the TDOC lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Founded in 2002, Teladoc (NYSE: TDOC) is based in Purchase, New York and provides global telehealth services.

Specifically, the Company provides comprehensive services and solutions addressing more than 400 medical subspecialties ranging from the flu to cancer and congestive heart failure. These services are provided through mobile devices, the Internet, video and phone.

According to its website, the Company has offices throughout the world and serves “millions of people” in 125 countries. To do so, Teladoc says it provides access to care in more than 20 languages.

Prior to adopting its current moniker in August 2018, the Company was known as Teladoc, Inc.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about a top executive’s conduct, and the enforcement of certain Company policies from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Teladoc stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in an article published by the Southern Investigative Research Foundation (“SIRF”) on December 5, 2018. In it, SIRF reported that Teladoc’s CFO, who is also named as an Individual Defendant in the December 12 complaint, had been involved in “an affair… with an employee many levels below him on the company’s organizational chart.”

The article also asserted that, “during their relationship [the employee] received a series of promotions over colleagues with either more industry experience or better credentials that stunned her former colleagues.” Finally, the article included allegations that the participants in the affair “liked to trade Teladoc Health’s stock together,” with the Individual Defendant advising his lover “when he thought there were good opportunities to sell some shares.”

A closer look…

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

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “We depend on our senior management team, and the loss of one or more of our executive officers or key employees, or an inability to attract and retain highly skilled employees could adversely affect our business.”

On another form filed with the SEC on April 15, 2016, the Company also said in pertinent part: “Teladoc is committed to the highest standards of integrity and ethics in the way it conducts business.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on April 6, 2017, the Company stated in pertinent part: “[t]he Board has also adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to all directors, officers and employees. The purpose of this code is to promote honest and ethical conduct for conducting the business of the Company consistent with the highest standards of business ethics.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$59.81
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$55.81
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

6.69%

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

 TDOC Class Action TDOC Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 11, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

TDOC Lawsuit TDOC CLass Action

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announce A HLTH Lawsuit; HLTH Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

January 2, 2019

Van ‘t Hoofd v. Nobilis Health Corp. et al 4:18-cv-04727 — On December 14, 2018, investors sued Nobilis Health Corp. (“Nobilis” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Plaintiffs in the HLTH class action allege that they acquired Nobilis stock at artificially inflated prices between May 8, 2018 and November 15, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the HLTH Lawsuit, contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: HLTH) describes itself as a “recognized healthcare leader and marketing innovator.”

As such, Nobilis says it “develops, owns, and partners with ambulatory surgery centers, hospitals, and physician practices to provide high-yield procedures in the rapidly expanding, minimally invasive, elective surgery market.”

In all, the Company has more than 30 locations across Texas and Arizona. In addition to operating its own facilities, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, and multi-specialty clinics in the desert southwest, Nobilis has also teamed up with 30 facilities in other parts of the country.

By marketing “nine independent brands,” Nobilis says it “deploys a unique patient acquisition strategy driven by proprietary, direct-to-consumer marketing technology, focusing on a specified set of procedures that are performed at its facilities by local physicians.”

Summary of Facts

The Company and three of its current and/or former senior officers (the “individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about business practices during the Class Period.

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

The truth came out in a series of events between August 2, 2018 and November 15, 2018. On August 2, the Company reported, “that its revenue for the second quarter of 208 was reduced due, in part, to a $2.4 million adjustment to its accounts receivable.”

Then, on November 9, Nobilis reported that it is “re-evaluating the Net Realizable Value on its Accounts Receivable and intends to make a significant adjustment to the carrying value of accounts receivable, primarily on out of network claims greater than 365 days old.” The Company also “filed for additional time to file its 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2018, while the Company and the auditor completed their review of the financial statements.”

Six days later, Nobilis   announced that the NYSE had notified it that the Company “is not in compliance with the NYSE’s continued listing requirements due to its failure to timely file its 10-Q.”

A closer look…

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

For example, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company reported revenue of $64.5 million and accounts receivable was $133.4 million.” In the same press release, the Company also “provided full year 2018 guidance with revenue in the range of $345.0 million to $355.0 million and adjusted EBITDA in the range of $57.0 million to $62.0 million.”

Then, in a press release issued on August 2, 2018, the Company reported, “that a new accounting standard regarding accounts receivable had impacted revenue.” In the same press release, Nobilis revised its full year 2018 guidance with revenue in the range of $315.0 million to $330.0 million and adjusted EBITDA in the range of $56.0 million to $59.0 million.”

During a conference call also held on August 2, 2018, one of the Individual Defendants explained that, “due to the new accounting standard, all accounts receivable adjustments are recorded as reductions in revenue, rather than as bad debt expense as under the previous standard.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$0.55
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$0.48
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

12.73%

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

 HLTH Class Action, HLTH Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 12, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

HLTH Class Action, HLTH Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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

 


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces XPO Lawsuit; XPO Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc., et al 3:18-cv-02062-VLB — On December 14, 2018, investors sued XPO Logistics, Inc. (“XPO” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs in the XPO class action allege that they acquired XPO stock at artificially inflated prices between February 26, 2014 and December 12, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the XPO lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Formerly known as Express-1 Expedited Solutions, Inc., XPO (NYSE: XPO) is a self-described “top ten global logistics company.”

As such, it provides transportation and logistics services to its customers throughout North America, Europe, the United Kingdom and Asia. In all, the Company claims it has operations in 32 countries and more than 1,500 locations.

According to its website, XPO has approximately 98,000 employees in its Transportation and Logistics divisions. Collectively, they cater to more than 50,000 customers in numerous industries, including but not limited to retail, e-commerce, food and beverage, manufacturing and technology and telecommunications.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are now accused of omitting truthful information about the efficacy of its mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) strategy and the use of certain accounting practices from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused XPO stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on December 12, 2018, when Spruce Point Management reported that a “forensic investigation into XPO” had uncovered “financial irregularities that conveniently cover [the Company’s] growing financial strain and inability to complete additional acquisitions despite repeated promises.” Among other things, the Spruce Point Management report also alleged that its investigation revealed “concrete evidence to suggest dubious tax accounting, under-reporting of bad debts, phantom income through unaccountable M&A earn-out liabilities, and aggressive amortization assumptions: all designed to portray glowing ‘Non-GAAP’ results.”

A closer look…

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

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, XPO detailed the alleged benefits of its M&A strategy, saying in relevant part: “We take a disciplined approach to acquisitions: we look for companies that are highly scalable and a good strategic fit with our core competencies.”

In the same context, the Company also said in pertinent part: “When we acquire a company, we seek to integrate it with our operations by moving the acquired operations onto our technology platform that connects our broader organization. We gain more carriers, customers, lane histories and pricing histories with each acquisition, and some acquisitions add complementary services.”

Finally, another form filed with the SEC on February 29, 2016 included certifications signed by the Individual Defendants in accordance with federal law. In them, the Individual Defendants swore that the information on the form fairly represented, in all relevant aspects, “the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$60.27
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$44.50
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

26.17%

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

XPO Class Action, XPO Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is February 12, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

 

Recently Filed Cases

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

XPO Class Action, XPO Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces BLUE Lawsuit; BLUE Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Lind v. bluebird bio, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-12556 — On December 12, 2018, investors sued bluebird bio, Inc. (“bluebird” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired bluebird stock at artificially inflated prices between December 11, 2017 and November 29, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the BLUE lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, bluebird (NASDAQ: BLUE) is a clinical-stage company “committed to developing potentially transformative gene therapies for severe genetic diseases and T cell-based immunotherapies.”

As such, its primary goal is “is to develop and bring to market the most advanced products based on the transformative potential of gene therapy to provide patients hope for a better life in the face of limited or no long-term safe and effective treatment options.”

The December 12 complaint also details the steps bluebird is taking to meet its objective. Specifically, the Company is conducting five clinical studies of LentiGlobin, its lead product candidate for the treatment of sickle cell disease (“SCD”) in the U.S. and abroad.

The Company’s claims about the efficacy of LentiGlobin are at the crux of the December 12 complaint.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out in a December 3, 2018 press release that the Company actually issued on December 1, 2018. In it, the Company informed investors that it had announced “new long-term data” from one completed and one ongoing study involving LentiGlobin at an American Society of Hematology (“ASH”) meeting.

Then, on December 3, 2018, Seeking Alpha published an article reporting that the results announced by bluebird “were lower than initial data reported a year ago indicating a lower rate of production of anti-sickling hemoglobin.”

A closer look…

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

For example, in a press release issued by bluebird at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company’s chief medical officer said in relevant part: “All three patients with severe SCD in the HGB-205 study showed a steady increase in HbAT87Q production in the first six months following LentiGlobin therapy, with the longest-treated patient showing stable hemoglobin levels over two and a half years.”

Then on a form filed with the SEC on February 21, 2018, the Company provided “Updated Clinical Data for the LentiGlobin product candidate in subjects with TDT or severe SCD.” In this context bluebird stated in relevant part: “It should be noted that these data presented above are current as of the data cut-off date, are preliminary in nature and our Northstar Study is not complete. There is limited data concerning long-term safety and efficacy following treatment with our LentiGlobin product candidate.”

Finally, on a form filed with the SEC on May 2, 2018, the Company stated in relevant part: “For efficacy, we believe that the Northstar Study and supportive ongoing HGB-205 study, together with the data available from our ongoing Northstar-2 Study and our long-term follow-up study LTF-303, could support the filing of a marketing authorization application in the European Union.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$122.89
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$116.50
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

5.20%

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

BLUE Class Action, BLUE Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

BLUE Class Action, BLUE Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces CMCM Class Action; CMCM Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

December 14, 2018

Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-11184-JMF — On November 30, 2018, investors sued Cheetah Mobile, Inc., (“Cheetah” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action claim that they acquired the Company’s American Depository Receipts (ADRs) at artificially inflated prices between April 26, 2017 and November 27, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of Cheetah’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the CMCM lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Cheetah (NYSE: CMCM) is a Chinese business incorporated in 2009 and known as Kingsoft Internet Holdings Limited until it adopted its current moniker in 2014.

As a “mobile Internet company,” Cheetah’s goal is to “provide leading apps for mobile users worldwide and connect users with personalized content powered by artificial intelligence.” According to its website, Cheetah has “attracted approximately 600 million global MAUs [monthly average users] in more than 200 countries and regions, of which approximately 77% are located in Europe and the U.S.”

Cheetah’s products include utility applications, such as Clean Master, Security Master, CM Launcher, Duba Anti-Virus and Cheetah Keyboard. The Company also provides social and gaming apps, such as LiveMe and popular casual games such as Piano Tiles 2, Rolling Sky and Arrow.io.

Summary of Facts

Cheetah and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices, and its operational and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of failing to disclose truthful information about its acquisition and use of certain data in SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Cheetah stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a Buzz Feed News article published on November 26, 2018. According to the November 30 complaint, the article reported that the Company’s apps, “tracked when users downloaded new apps and used this data to inappropriately claim credit for having caused the download.” Buzz Feed also reported that, “two of Cheetah’s apps were removed from the Google Play store after publication of the article.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 30 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period. Some examples follow.

On a form filed with the SEC on April 26, 2017, Cheetah stated in relevant part: “We generate online marketing revenues primarily by providing mobile advertising services to advertisers worldwide, as well as referring user traffic and selling advertisements on our mobile and PC platforms.”

The same form included a certification signed by one the Individual Defendants in accordance with federal law. By signing it, the Individual Defendant attested to, “the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.”

On another form filed with the SEC on April 24, 2018, the Company referred to its “Ability to provide targeted advertising,” and stated in relevant part: We believe that data analytics is a key factor affecting our online marketing revenues. Data analytics enable us to map our users’ interest and distribute targeted advertising to our users. Our ability to effectively conduct user profiling and provide targeted advertising affects advertising engagement and conversion, which affects our online marketing revenues.”

What the Company did not reveal, however was that its apps had, “undisclosed imbedded features which tracked when users downloaded new apps,” that it misused this data, and that the discovery of this misuse “would foreseeably subject the Company’s apps to removal from the Google Play store.” The Company also failed to disclose that revenue generated during the Class Period was “unsustainable” because it was partially derived from improper conduct.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$8.80
Closing stock the trading day after disclosures:

 

$5.48
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

37.72%

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

CMCM Class Action CMCM Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 29, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

CMCM Class Action CMCM Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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

 


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces TX Class Action; TX Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Ulbricht v. Ternium S.A. et al 1:18-cv-06801-PKC-RLM — On November 29, 2018, investors sued Ternium S.A. (“Ternium” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The TX class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Ternium securities at artificially inflated prices between May 1, 2014 and November 27, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the TX lawsuit, please contact us today.

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Working through its subsidiaries, Ternium (NYSE: TX) makes and processes various steel products in Mexico, the United States, and throughout Central and South America.

Ternium now employs more than 21,000 people. Its steel products include but are not limited to slabs, billets and round bars, hot-rolled coils and sheets, bars and stirrups, wire rods, cold-rolled coils and sheets, tin plates, hot dipped galvanized and electrogalvanized sheets and pre-painted sheets.

Founded in 1961, the Company is incorporated and based in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain conduct and its impact on the Company from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Ternium securities to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a Bloomberg article published November 27, 2018. In it Bloomberg reported that the Chairman of Ternium’s Board of Directors, who is also chairman and CEO of Tenaris, S.A., had been “indicted for his role in a graft scheme.”

The article also went into greater detail, reporting: “The judge charged [Paolo] Rocca after the Argentine billionaire testified that one of his company’s executives paid an undisclosed amount of cash to government officials in monthly installments from 2009 to 2012. The officials were allegedly working for then-President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s administration to speed up a compensation payment from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez for the nationalization of Sidor, a unit that had been seized by Venezuela.”

A closer look…

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

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC on April 30, 2014, the Company said in relevant part: “Ternium’s cash flows for 2011 and 2012 include non-recurring payments received in connection with the transfer of our interest in Sidor to Venezuela.”

On the same form, Ternium referred to its Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct, saying in relevant part: “We have adopted a code of ethics that applies specifically to our principal executive officers and principal financial and accounting officer and controller, as well as persons performing similar functions. We have also adopted a code of conduct that applies to all company employees, including contractors, subcontractors and suppliers.”

Another form filed with the SEC on June 1, 2015, included certifications signed by two of the Individual Defendants pursuant to federal law. By signing them, the Individual Defendants attested to “the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$29.44
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$28.02
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

4.82%

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

TX Class Action TX Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

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

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

TX Class Action TX Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announced RYAAY Lawsuit; RYAAY Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

December 12, 2018

City of Birmingham Firemen’s and Policemen’s Supplemental Pension System v. Ryanair Holdings, plc. et al 1:18-cv-10330-JPO — On November 6, 2018, investors sued Ryanair Holdings, plc. (“Ryanair” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the RYAAY class action allege that they acquired Ryanair American Depositary Shares (ADS) at artificially inflated prices between May 30, 2017, and September 28, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more on the RYAAY lawsuit, please contact us today.

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Ryanair (NASDAQ: RYAAY) is a commercial airline based in Dublin, Ireland.

According to its website, the Company’s history dates to 1985-1986, when it launched its “first route in July with daily flights on a 15-seater Bandeirante aircraft, operating daily from Waterford in the southeast of Ireland to London Gatwick.”

Today, the Company bills itself as, “Europe’s first and largest low fares airline,” and “Europe’s Number 1 airline.” Specifically, it claims that it accommodates more than 130 million passengers per year on “more than 2,000 daily flights from 86 bases, connecting 215 destinations in 37 countries on a fleet of 430 Boeing 737 aircraft.”       Finally, the Company claims that it employs “a team of more than 14,500 highly skilled aviation professionals.”

Summary of Facts

Ryanair and its CEO now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and/or withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about difficult labor relations, and the potential impact on Ryanair’s operations and financial results, from SEC filings and related material. By recklessly or knowingly doing so, they allegedly caused Ryanair ADS to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events beginning on September 14, 2017. That’s when the public learned that Ryanair “had lost a key ruling in the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) that cast doubt on the legality of the Company’s use of Irish employment contracts to evade local labor laws throughout Europe.”

The next day, the Company announced the short-term cancellation of daily flights affecting more than 300,000 customers due to “pilot scheduling issues.” However, reports quickly surfaced indicating that the disruption was really due to “widespread defections by disgruntled employees.”

Although the Company vowed to address employee concerns, news about ongoing employee unrest again surfaced in the summer of 2018. On July 23, 2018, the Company “disclosed a 20% decrease in quarterly profits, due in part to a 34% increase in staff costs.”

Finally, on October 1, 2018, Ryanair announced that it would be unable to meet its annual profit guidance “due to the lost fares and ballooning costs related to the strikes and flight cancellations.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 6 complaint, Ryanair and its CEO repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in pertinent part: “In April we negotiated new pay and condition agreements with 10 of our pilot and cabin crew bases which means that all of our 86 bases now enjoy 5 year agreements, which guarantee them industry leading rosters, and pay increases each year.”

On a conference call with analysts and investors also held on May 30, 2017, Ryanair’s CEO said in relevant part: “We reject some of the idiotic criticism that came out of some Scandinavian pension forums recently that somehow we don’t deal with our employees, our employees are not covered by collective bargaining when they are. And we do not see unionization being an issue for the foreseeable future.”

Then on a form filed with the SEC on July 25, 2017, the Company stated in pertinent part: “Following negotiations through this ERC system, pilots of all of Ryanair’s 86 bases are covered by four, five or six year collective agreements on pay, allowances and rosters which fall due for negotiation at various dates between 2018 and 2023. Cabin crew at all of Ryanair’s bases are also party to long term collective agreements on pay, allowances and rosters, which expire in March 2021.”

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

Closing ADS price prior to disclosures:

 

$96.04
Closing ADS price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$80.93
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

15.73%

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

RYAAY Lawsuit, RYAAY Class Action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 7, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

RYAAY CLass Action, RYAAY Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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

 


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces ALGN Class Action; ALGN Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Lu v. Align Technology, Inc., et al 5:18-cv-06720-LHK–On November 5, 2018, investors sued Align Technology, Inc., (“Align” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the ALGN class action allege that they acquired Align stock at artificially inflated prices between July 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the ALGN Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Align (NYSE: ALGN) is a global medical device company that provides products and services which, “help dental professionals achieve the clinical results they expect and deliver effective, cutting-edge dental options to their patients.”

The Company says it introduced its Invisalign teeth straightening system in 1999, and that it made more than 1 million of the unique clear aligners within two years. Today, the Company also claims, it has helped treat more than 5 million patients with the Invisalign system – which is now available to adult and teenage patients in more than 90 countries globally.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth came out when the Company announced its third quarter 2018 financial results on October 24, 2018. Align then revealed that its Invisalign Average Selling Price dropped from $1,315 to $1,230.

On the same day, the Company announced that its Chief Marketing Officer (an Individual Defendant) would “reduce his responsibilities and transition to a part-time position.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 5, complaint, Align and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release announcing the Company’s financial results for the second quarter of 2018, which was issued at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Year-over-year revenue growth of 37.5% was driven by continued momentum from Invisalign doctors and increased adoption of Invisalign treatment for teenage patients, which was 42.1%.”

In the same press release, the same Individual Defendant also stated in pertinent part: “Q2 Invisalign volume growth of 30.5% year-over-year reflects increased utilization and expansion of our customer base, which was over 50,000 for the first time and included more than 5,000 new Invisalign-trained doctors.”

Then, on August 2, 2018, the Company filed a quarterly report with the SEC in which it affirmed the financial results announced in the press release.

What the Company did not disclose, however, was that it “would offer higher discounts to promote Invisalign,” and that “the promotions would materially impact revenue.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$290.83
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$232.07
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

20.20%

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

 ALGN Lawsuit ALGN Class Action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 4, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

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

ALGN Lawsuit ALGN Class Action

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces APOG Lawsuit; APOG Class Action

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

On November 5, 2018, investors sued Apogee Enterprises, Inc., (“Apogee” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Minnesota. The APOG class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Apogee stock at artificially inflated prices between June 28, 2018 and September 17, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the APOG Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Apogee (NASDAQ: APOG) is a self-described “industry leader in architectural products and services.” As such, it says it derives the bulk of its revenue through its architectural glass, metal and installation businesses.

The Company’s history dates to 1949. Eventually, the business that began with just one auto glass shop expanded to provide architectural glass installation and window framing. In 1971, Apogee went public, offering 250,000 shares.

Today, Apogee has eight operating companies, 12 manufacturing and fabrication facilities in the United States, and 13 overseas.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about its labor force and ability to hire new employees from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Apogee stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a press release issued by the Company on September 18, 2018. In it the Company revealed the operating income for its glass segment was $1.7 million, compared to $10.3 million in the “previous year’s comparable quarter.” The Company blamed the poor performance on “significantly increased labor costs, lower productivity, and higher cost of quality, as the segment was challenged to efficiently ramp-up production to meet the higher than expected, short lead-time customer demand.” It also reduced its financial guidance.

Then on an ensuing conference call to discuss its financial and operating results for the second fiscal quarter of 2018, one of the Individual Defendants admitted “Apogee was never ready to ramp-up production and meet the previously announced growth and margins,” that Defendants “were aware of labor market trends,” and that they did nothing to address them.

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 5 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release regarding the Company’s financial and operating results for the first fiscal quarter of 20, which was issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in relevant part: “We also continued to make progress positioning the company for long-term, stable earnings and cash flow growth, regardless of the economic cycle.”

In the same press release, the Company also said in pertinent part: “On this strong foundation, we continued making investments and process improvements to increase efficiencies in project selection, manufacturing and delivery to raise long-term operating margins and drive earnings.”

Then, during an ensuing conference call to discuss the Company’s fiscal first quarter 2018 results, one of the Individual Defendants stated in pertinent part: “…order activity for Architectural Glass grew substantially during the quarter and we continue to expect higher revenues sequentially in Q2 and year-over-year revenue in operating income growth for the remainder of the year.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$48.22
Closing stock price two trading days after disclosures:

 

$41.76
Two day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

13.40%

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

APOG Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 4, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

APOG Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces NKTR Class Action; NKTR Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

November 27, 2018

Mulquin v. Nektar Therapeutics, et al. 4:18-cv-06607-HSG — On October 30, 2018, investors sued Nektar Therapeutics (“Nektar” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. The NKTR class action alleges that the plaintiffs acquired Nektar stock at artificially inflated prices between November 11, 2017 and October 2, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the NKTR Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Nektar (NASDAQ: NKTR) is a self-described research-based development stage biopharmaceutical company that “discovers and develops innovative medicines in areas of high unmet medical need.”

The Company says it leverages its “proprietary and proven chemistry platform in the discovery and design” of its new drug candidates. It also says that its R&D pipeline of new investigational drugs includes treatments for cancer, auto-immune disease and chronic pain.

Nektar’s claims about its lead immune-oncology (“I-0”) product candidate, NKTTR-214, are at the crux of the October 30 complaint.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth emerged in a report published by Plainview LLC (“Plainview”) on October 1, 2018. In it, Plainview concluded that, “the core concept of Nektar’s plan to develop NKTR-214 into ‘a new universal cancer treatment’ ‘has never worked in practice,’ and further asserted that Nektar’s decision to only disclose certain trial results represented ‘an unprecedented level of opacity.’”

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 30 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For instance, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company said in relevant part: “Nektar and Bristol-Myers Squibb entered into a clinical collaboration in September of 2016 to evaluate the potential for the combination of Opdivo and NKTR-214 to show improved and sustained efficacy and tolerability above the current standard of care.”

Then, in a May 10, 2018 press release, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Nektar begins 2018 in a very strong position with a major collaboration with Bristol-Myers Squibb for NKTR-214 and key advancements in our immuno-oncology and immunology pipeline.”

Finally, in another press release issued on August 8, 2018, the same Individual Defendant also stated in pertinent part: “[o]ver the past few months, we have reported significant progress across all areas of our pipeline with notable milestones for immuno-oncology, immunology and pain programs.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$60.96
Closing stock price tw0 trading days after disclosures:

 

$55.33
Tow-day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

9.24%

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

 NKTR Class Action, NKTR Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 31, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

NKTR Class Action, NKTR Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces IGC Class Action; IGC Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al 8:18-cv-03396-PWG — On November 2, 2018, investors sued India Globalization Capital, Inc., (“IGC” or the “Company) in United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The federal securities class action alleges that the plaintiffs acquired IGC stock at artificially inflated prices between September 26, 2018 and October 29, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the IGC Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, the Company (NYSE American: IGC) engages in two different types of businesses.

The first is a “Legacy Infrastructure” business mostly conducted through IGC’s subsidiary, TBL, which includes heavy equipment rental, real estate management and trading in certain commodities.

The second is IGCA Pharma. The Company describes this business as a “leading cannabis-based pharmaceutical company with a pipeline of products designed to improve the lives of patients battling Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, chronic pain, PTSD and eating disorders.”

IGC is incorporated and based in Maryland. According to the November 2 complaint, the Company had more than 31 million shares issued and outstanding as of June 15, 2018.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth began to emerge when Citron Research and Marketwatch publicly questioned IGC’s operations following the “astronomic rise of the Company’s stock price.”

Then, on October 29, 2018, when NYSE American announced that, “trading in the Company’s stock would be immediately suspended and delisted from the Exchange” for various reasons.

A closer look…

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

For example, on September 25, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing its plans to enter a partnership and launch a “hemp/CBD-infused energy drink” called Nitro-G. In it, IGC stated in relevant part: “IGC will pay 797,000 shares of restricted, unregistered, common stock, for a 10-year agreement, with an option for multiple 5-year extensions, for the rights to market the products in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and South America, and exclusive global rights to all developed CBD-infused products.”

In the same press release, the Company also said in pertinent part: “IGC plans to create a branded, hemp/CBD-infused version of the formulation that addresses market demand for energy drinks with the inclusion of healthy properties derived from hemp including CBD.”

Finally, in the same press release, the Company concluded: “This transaction is particularly timely given the language of the 2018 Farm Bill that currently addresses potentially legalizing, on a federal level, industrial hemp and products derived from it, including hemp oil that contains CBD.”

The November 2 complaint alleges that IGC’s stock “rocketed 458%” within the week following the announcement. That week, IGC also “conducted an at-the-market stock offering announced on September 22, 2018, raising $30 million in capital.”

What the Company never disclosed, however, was that it was “engaged in ventures or promotions which it had not developed to commercial stage,” and that its management had “engaged in operations contrary to public interest.”

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

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

 IGC Lawsuit, IGC Class Action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 2, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

IGC Lawsuit, IGC Class Action

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

SONS Class Action (RBBN Class Action Lawsuit) Filed; SONS Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Miller v. Sonus Networks, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-12344 — On November 8, 2018, investors sued Sonus Networks, Inc., (“Sonus” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. The SONS class action (RBBN Class Action) alleges that plaintiffs acquired Sonus stock at artificially inflated prices between January 8, 2015, and March 24, 2015 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the SONS Lawsuit (RBBN Lawsuit), please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Now known as Ribbon Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: RBBN), Sonus (formerly NASDAQ: SONS), has been in business since 1997 and engages in the provision of “communications solutions.”

The technology the Company offers allows service providers and other establishments to safeguard their “communications infrastructures” through the use of Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”), video, instant messaging and online collaboration.

According to the November 8 complaint, Sonus “began shifting its product line” as “IP-to-IP communications have become more common.” Specifically, it transitioned to the provision of “cloud-based solutions to link and secure multivendor, multiprotocol communications systems and applications across their customers’ networks of smartphones and tablets, for all of their employees and all of their offices.” Within this context, it focused on the production of “session border controllers,” or “SBCs.” SBCs are important because they “help secure connections as private communications connect with the public internet [sic].”

As technology and resulting demands for security have grown and changed, Sonus has also transitioned to the production of “diameter signaling controllers,” or “DSCs.” These products serve a crucial purpose by interconnecting separate elements and creating “a central point of control” within 4G LTE networks.

A “global direct sales force” sells the Company’s products. It is supplemented by “sales support from regional channel partners” worldwide.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth began to surface when the Company issued a press release before the market opened on March 24, 2015. In it, Sonus revealed that it had missed its first quarter, 2015 revenue projection by more than $20 million. According to the November 8 complaint, the Company’s only explanation at the time was that it, “no longer expects to receive certain orders this quarter that had been expected to be received at the back end of the first quarter.”

Immediately following the revelation, one industry analyst reduced the Company’s stock rating. The next day, another analyst blasted Sonus for its lack of honesty and management’s failure to provide any explanation for the reduced guidance.

Finally, on August 7, 2018, the SEC issued a press release and an Order. In it, the SEC announced that it had charged Ribbon Communications, Inc., and two of the Individual Defendants with making “material misstatements” about Sonus’s “revenue statements and guidance for Q1 2015” on January 8, 2015, and February 18, 2015. In settling the charges, the Company and Individual Defendants “agreed to pay civil penalties totaling $1.97 million.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the November 8 complaint, Sonus and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “We remain comfortable with consensus analyst revenue… estimates for the first quarter of 2015 of approximately $74 million.”

Then, during an earnings call held on February 18, 2015, the same Individual Defendant also said in relevant part: “Now, looking at Q1, we expect revenue to be approximately $74 million.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$13.16
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$8.70
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

33.89%

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

 

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 8, 2019. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

 

SONS Lawsuit SONS Class Action RBBN Lawsuit RBBN Class Action

 

 

 

About Us

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

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

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


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announced FIT Class Action; FIT Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

November 26, 2018

Lopes v. Fitbit, Inc., et al 3:18-cv-06665-JST — On November 1, 2018, investors sued Fitbit, Inc., (“Fitbit” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the FIT class action allege that they acquired Fitbit stock at artificially inflated prices between August 2, 2016 and January 30, 2017 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the FIT Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

According to its website, Fitbit (NYSE: FIT) is a business “dedicated to health and fitness” that is “building products that help transform people’s lives.”

The Company’s history dates to 2007, when its founders “realized that sensors and wireless technology had advanced to a point where they could bring amazing experiences to fitness and health.” Today its mission is to empower people to live healthier and more active lives.

Its products purportedly include wearable devices such as health and fitness trackers and smartwatches that allow users to access relevant data.

Fitbit is incorporated in Delaware and its principal executive offices are located in San Francisco. It also has U.S. offices in Boston, San Diego, and Washington State; and international offices in Dublin, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Seoul, Bucharest, Minsk, New Delhi, Tokyo, Singapore, Shenzhen and Waterloo (Canada).

As of October 31, 2016, Fitbit had more than 170 million shares of common stock outstanding.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth emerged in a press release issued by the Company on January 30, 2017. In it, the Company disclosed that it expected its revenue for the fourth quarter of 2016 to fall well below previous estimates. The Company also “disclosed expected annual revenue growth of 17%, rather than the previously-announced forecast of 25% to 26%.”

A closer look…

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

For example, in a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, one of the Individual Defendants said in relevant part: “Based on the progress of our business, against a backdrop of a growing worldwide opportunity for our products, we remain confident in our guidance for the year.”

On a conference call also held that day, the same Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “We have additional new products to come this year. The positive response we have received from retailers, who have had had the chance to preview these new products under NDA in recent weeks, strengthens our confidence in our guidance for the year.”

Then, on October 6, 2016, the same Individual Defendant did a television interview in which he “made a variety of positive statements about Fitbit’s business, operations and prospects.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$7.21
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$6.06
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

15.95%

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

 FIT Class Action FIT Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 31, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

FIT Class Action FIT Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces HON Class Action; HON Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Kanefsky v. Honeywell International, Inc., et al 2:18-cv-15536-WJM-MF — On October 31, 2018, investors sued Honeywell International, Inc., (“Honeywell” or the “Company”) In United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The HON class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Honeywell stock at artificially inflated prices between February 9, 2018 and October 19, 2018 (the “Class Period). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the HON lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

As a “multi-national conglomerate,” Honeywell (NYSE: HON) engages in the manufacturing of numerous commercial and consumer products, engineering services and aerospace systems.

Its history dates to 1885, when inventor Albert Butz patented the “furnace regulator and alarm.” Butz established the Butz Thermo-Electric Regulator Co., Minneapolis, in April 1886. That business eventually became the Minneapolis Heat Regulator Company, which in turn merged with Honeywell Heating Specialty Co., in 1927.

Today, Honeywell is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey, and has operations at approximately 1,300 sites in 70 countries. It also has more than 131,000 employees globally, including more than 22,000 engineers and 11,000 software developers.

Of special relevance here is Honeywell’s ownership of Bendix Friction Metals (“Bendix”) until 2014.  Bendix, which makes automotive, truck and industrial brakes, allegedly ignored known health hazards and used asbestos in its brake- and clutch-pad products until 2001.

Honeywell’s claims about its Bendix asbestos-related liability are at the crux of the October 31 complaint.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth began to surface on August 23, 2018, when the Company revealed that its “Bendix asbestos-related liability is estimated to be $1,693 million [sic] as of June 30, 2018.” The Company also acknowledged that, “this is $1,083 [sic] million higher than the Company’s prior estimation.”

Then, in a quarterly report filed with the SEC on October 19, 2018, Honeywell disclosed that, “the SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance had reviewed Honeywell’s prior accounting for liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims…” The Company also revealed that it learned about the initiation of a related investigation by the SEC Division of Enforcement on September 13, 2018.

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 31 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

For instance, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company stated in relevant part: “In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos related matters, we record asbestos related insurance recoveries that are deemed probable.”

On another form filed with the SEC on April 20, 2018, Honeywell also said in relevant part: “We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using average resolution values for the previous five years.”

Finally, in a quarterly report filed with the SE on July 20, 2018, Honeywell reported that its asbestos related liabilities attributable to Bendix totaled $610 [sic] as of June 30, 2018.

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$155.19
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$153.47
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

1.11%

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

 HON Lawsuit HON Class Action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 31, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

HON Lawsuit HON Class Action

About Us

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

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

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


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announced SYF Class Action; SYF Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Retail Wholesale Department Store Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Synchrony Financial, et al 3:18-cv-01818 — On November 2, 2018, investors sued Synchrony Financial (“Synchrony” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs in the SYF class action allege that they acquired Synchrony stock at artificially inflated prices between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the SYF Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: SYF) bills itself as “one of the nation’s premier consumer financial services companies.”

As such, it says it provides “a range of credit products through programs” it has created with “a diverse group of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service providers” to help spur growth for its partners and afford financial flexibility to its customers.

Among other things, the Company issues “store branded credit cards,” from established retailers including but not limited to Lowe’s, Amazon and The Gap. According to the November 2 complaint, Synchrony is the largest provider of these “private-label” credit cards in the United States.

The Company, which says its roots in consumer finance can be traced back to 1932, is incorporated in Delaware and has corporate headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut. As of August 22, 2018, it had more than 740 million shares of stock outstanding.

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth initially surfaced on April 28, 2017, when the Company announced, “disappointing first quarter 2017 earnings driven by poor loan performance.” At the time, the Company revealed that it “would be setting aside over $1.3 billion in reserves to cover probable loan losses,” representing a dramatic increase in reserves compared to the prior quarter.

In the aftermath of these disclosures, which sent its stock price tumbling, the Company claimed that it “tightened” credit standards. However, the Company never told investors that this tactic damaged its partnerships with retailers, the most significant of which was Walmart.

In fact, the public didn’t become aware of the rift between Synchrony and Walmart until July 12, 2018, when news broke about the potential termination of the partnership. Then, on July 26, 2018, the media confirmed that Walmart had ended its relationship with Synchrony and chosen a competitor as its replacement.

Finally, on November 1, 2018, Walmart sued Synchrony “alleging that the Company deliberately underwrote the Walmart/Synchrony credit card program in a way that exposes the program to significant unique credit risk.” Walmart is purportedly seeking damages “in an amount… estimated to be no less than $800 million.”

A closer look…

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

For example, in a presentation at an industry conference on November 3, 2016, the Company presented information indicating that it: “Focused on a Higher Quality Asset Base,” and maintained “Disciplined Underwriting” since “at least the third quarter of 2010 through the third quarter of 2016.”

Then, in an annual report filed with the SEC on February 23, 2017, Synchrony, “affirmed that it complied with critical accounting estimates in preparing its consolidated and combined financial statements, including in establishing allowance for loan losses, which requires the Company to make its best estimate of probable losses inherent in the portfolio.”

Finally, on an April 20, 2018 conference call held to discuss Synchrony’s earnings for the first quarter 2018, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “We started to make refinements to our underwriting in the second half of 2016, and we continue to see the positive impact of those changes.”

During the same conference call, the second Individual Defendant also said the Company was “well entrenched” with its partners.

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

SYF Class Action SYF Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is January 2, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

SYF Class Action SYF Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


AVP Class Action AVP Lawsuit Avon

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces MCK Class Action; MCK Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

November 9, 2018

Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation, et al 3:18-cv-06525 — On October 25, 2018, investors sued McKesson Corporation (“McKesson” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the MCK class action allege that they acquired McKesson stock at artificially inflated prices between October 24, 3013 and January 25, 2017 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the MCK Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Founded in 1833 McKesson (NYSE:MCK) now has more than 76,000 employees and two primary divisions. Collectively, its business segments deliver “pharmaceutical and medical products and business services to retail pharmacies and institutional healthcare providers such as hospitals and health systems” throughout North America and globally.

According to the October 25 complaint, McKesson’s work as a pharmaceutical wholesaler generates the bulk of the Company’s income. In this capacity, McKesson “purchases drugs in bulk directly from manufacturers and then sells and distributes those drugs to pharmacy networks, hospitals and independent pharmacies.”

Summary of Facts

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

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

The truth emerged after trading ended on January 25, 2017. At that time, McKesson announced “disappointing financial results for the third quarter of its fiscal year 2017.” Of importance is this context is that McKesson reported “lower than expected North American Pharmaceutical Distribution and Services business unit revenue of $41.7 billion” on the Current Report (Form 8-K) it filed with the SEC.

On another form filed with the SEC that day, McKesson reiterated the financial results it provided on the first firm and reported its financial and operating results for the third quarter of its fiscal year 2017. As alleged in the October 25 complaint, the “poor financial results were due to the materialization of the risk that the price fixing scheme would unravel and lead to materially lower revenues and profits.”

A closer look…

According to the October 25 complaint, the Company “participated in a price-fixing and anticompetitive scheme in the sale and distribution of generic pharmaceutical drugs with manufacturers and wholesalers” throughout the Class Period.”

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

For example, a form that the Company filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period contained signed certifications in which the Individual Defendants attested to “the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of fraud – or lack thereof.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on May 14, 2014, McKesson mentioned its “Code of Conduct” and specifically noted that it was “applicable to all employees, officers, and directors,” and that it was available on the Company’s website.

As set forth in the complaint, the Code of Conduct employed by McKesson at that time expressly stated, “This Code applies globally to all employees, officers and directors – regardless of position or tenure. We also seek business partners who share our values and commitment to doing business with integrity.”

The Code of Conduct employed by McKesson when it filed yet another form with the SEC on May 12, 2015, also contained stipulations to “Fair Competition.” It stated in pertinent part: “Laws in many of the places where we do business are intended to protect fair an [sic] open competition. To comply with these laws you should not discuss, coordinate, or agree with a competitor to fix prices, split or ‘fix’ bids, refuse to deal with (or boycott) a supplier or customer, or otherwise limit distribution channels.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$151.10
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$138.55
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

8.31%

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

 MCK Class Action MCK Lawsuit

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 26, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

 MCK Class Action MCK Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

For additional information about the MCK Class Action Lawsuit, or any of our other institutional services, please contact us.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces Bank OZK Class Action; Bank OZK Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Colbert v. Bank OZK et al 4:18-cv-00793-JM — On October 26, 2018, investors sued Bank OZK (“Bank OZK” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. Plaintiffs in the Bank OZK class action allege that they acquired Bank OZK stock at artificially inflated prices between February 19, 2016 and October 18, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the Bank OZK Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NASDAQ: OZK) was known as the Bank of the Ozarks and traded under the ticker symbol “OZRK” until July 16, 0218.

It is a “retail and commercial bank with several subsidiaries focused on investment securities, development of real estate, and ownership of private aircraft.”

According to its website, Bank OZK had assets totaling more than $22 billion, deposits totaling more than $17.8 billion and total loans in the amount of $16.73 billion as of and for the nine months ended September 30, 2018. Its year-to-date income at that time totaled more than $302 million.

Bank OZK is incorporated under Arkansas laws and maintains its principal executive offices in Little Rock. Its history dates to 1903, when it was founded as a small community bank in Jasper, Arkansas.  It opened another bank in Ozark, Arkansas, 34 years later. In all, it now has more than 250 offices in 10 states.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the adequacy of Bank OZK’s internal controls to assess credit risk and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Bank OZK stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth began to emerge on October 18, 2018, when the Company issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2018 financial results. In it, Bank OZK disclosed significant decreases in both net income and diluted earnings per common share for the third quarter of 2018 compared to the same period for 2017.

More importantly, the Company revealed that it had “incurred combined charge-offs of $45.5 million on two Real Estate Specialties Group (‘RSEG’) credits” associated with two unrelated projects in South Carolina and North Carolina. The Company added that the projects had been in the Bank’s portfolio “since 2007 and 2008, and were previously classified as substandard.”

Then, on a conference call with analysts and investors held the next day, one of the Individual Defendants acknowledged that, “one credit became substandard in the second quarter of 2017 and the other in the fourth quarter of 2017.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 26 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, on a form filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, the Company identified failure to properly manage its credit risk as something that could jeopardize its business. It said in relevant part: “Although we attempt to minimize our credit risk through prudent loan and lease underwriting procedures and by monitoring concentrations of our loans and leases, there can be no assurance that these underwriting and monitoring procedures will reduce these risks.”

The Company reported decreases in its substandard loans on forms filed with the SEC on May 6, 2016; August 8, 2016; November 8, 2016; May 5, 2017; November 7, 2017; and May 8, 2018. However, it also reported increases in its substandard loans on forms filed with the SEC on March 1, 2017; August 8, 2017; February 27, 2018; and August 7, 2018.

What the Company failed to disclose, however, was that it “lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk,” and that this meant some of its loans “posed an increased risk of loss.” The Company also failed to disclose, “certain substandard loans were reasonably likely to lead to charge-offs.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$34.85
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$25.52
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

26.77%

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

 bank ozk lawsuit bank ozk class action

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 26, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

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

Recently Filed Cases

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

Bank OZK Class Action Bank OZK Lawsuit

About Us

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

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

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


CAG Lawsuit, CAG Class Action

Class Action Reports

Levi & Korsinsky Announces DY Class Action; DY Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Tung v. Dycom Industries, Inc., et al 9:18-cv-81448-RLR — On October 25, 2018, investors sued Dycom Industries, Inc. (“Dycom” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. The DY Class Action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Dycom stock at artificially inflated prices between November 20, 2017 and August 10, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information about the DY Lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Dycom (NYSE: DY) engages in the provision of “specialty contracting services” through its subsidiaries throughout the United States, and in Canada.

These include: program management, engineering, construction, maintenance and installation services for telecommunications providers; underground facility locating services for various utilities; and “other construction and maintenance services” for electric and gas utilities.

Dycom is incorporated in Florida, and its principal offices are located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. According to its website, Dycom has more than 14,000 employees and 500 field offices.

According to the October 25 complaint, the Company had more than 31.2 million shares of common stock outstanding as of August 29, 2018.

Summary of Facts

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

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the Company’s reliance on permitting and tactical considerations for large projects, and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related materials. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Dycom stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events that transpired on May 22, 2018 and August 13, 2018. Before the market opened on May 22, Dycom issued a press release in which it announced that it was “revising is financial guidance for the 2019 fiscal year ending January 26, 2019 to reflect the actual results for the quarter ended April 28, 2018 and the anticipated timing of activity on large customer programs and the related impacts on revenues and margins.”

Then, on August 13, Dycom issued another press release in which it revised its guidance for the “financial and operating results for the second fiscal quarter and six months ended July 28, 2018,” and announced “preliminary revenues and results for the second quarter below the previous guidance.”

During a conference call to discuss these matters, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “These preliminary results were impacted by large scale deployments that were slower than expected during the quarter, due to customer timing and tactical considerations and margins that were pressured from under-absorption of labor and field costs to the lower revenue level.”

A closer look…

As alleged in the October 25 complaint, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements during the Class Period.

For example, during a November 20, 2017 conference call to discuss the Company’s financial and operating results for the first fiscal quarter ended October 28, 2017, one of the Individual Defendants said in pertinent part: “Engineering and construction activity is expected to increase throughout the balance of our second quarter and accelerate into calendar 2018. Customers are continuing to reveal with specificity new multi-year initiatives that are being planned and managed on a market-by-market basis.”

On the same conference call, the same Individual Defendant also said in relevant part: “As with prior initiations of large-scale network deployments, we expect some normal timing volatility and customer spending modulations as network deployment strategies evolve and tactical considerations, primarily permitting impact timing.”

Finally, during the same call, the second Individual Defendant also addressed the impact of new large projects on the gross margin, saying in relevant part: “We expect gross margin percentage to be in line or slightly better compared to the April 2017 quarterly margin, reflecting the expected mix of work activity and improving performance as services for large customer programs begin to accelerate.”

What Dycom failed to disclose, however was that its large projects were “highly dependent on permitting and tactical considerations,” and that it was “facing great uncertainties related to permitting issues,” and the resulting exposure to “near-term margin pressure and absorption issues.”

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

Closing stock price prior to disclosures:

 

$89.71
Closing stock price the trading day after disclosures:

 

$68.09
One day stock price decrease (percentage) as a result of disclosures:

 

24.10%

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

DY Lawsuit DY Class Action 

Actions You May Take

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

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is December 24, 2018. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court. Typically, the plaintiff or plaintiffs with the largest losses are appointed lead plaintiff.

Recently Filed Cases

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

DY Lawsuit DY Class Action

About Us

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

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

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


CWH Class Action CWH Lawsuit

Class Action Reports

CWH Class Action: Levi & Korsinsky Announces CWK Lawsuit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

October 31, 2018

Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al 1:18-cv-07030 — On October 19, 2018, investors sued Camping World Holdings, Inc., (“Camping World” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. Plaintiffs in the CWH class action allege that they acquired Camping World stock at artificially inflated prices between March 8, 2017 and August 7, 2018 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. For more information on the CWH lawsuit, please contact us today!

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE: CWH) bills itself as “the leading outdoor and camping retailer.” As such, Camping World sells “an extensive assortment” of recreational vehicles (“RV”s) along with related RV and camping gear.

In addition to providing RV maintenance and repair services, Camping World claims that it offers “the industry’s broadest and deepest range of services, protection plans, products and resources.”

Camping World has been in business for more than 50 years and maintains its headquarters in Lincolnshire, Illinois. According to its website, it has more than 135 retail locations in 36 states and a “comprehensive e-commerce platform.”

Summary of Facts

Camping World, three of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”), and a private equity firm and an investment adviser (the “Crestview Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding critical information about the Company’s business practices and financial condition during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain financial results and certain issues stemming from its acquisition of Gander Stores, from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Camping World stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth emerged in a series of events beginning during a three-day period between February 27 and March 1, 2018. That’s when the Company reveled “a host of accounting errors and the need to delay the filing of its 2017 annual financial report.”

Then, on a form filed with the SEC on March 13, 2018, the Company admitted that it identified some “material weaknesses” in its internal 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.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN 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.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN 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.

 

 


CAG Lawsuit, CAG 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.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN 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.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN 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.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN 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.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN 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.


ORN Lawsuit; ORN 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.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

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.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

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.


TLGT Lawsuit; TLGT Class Action

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.


Levi & Korsinsky Announce ARA Lawsuit; ARA Class Action

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 Announce VNDA Lawsuit; VNDA Class Action

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 Announce VNDA Lawsuit; VNDA Class Action

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 t