L Brands, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. L Brands’ Victoria’s Secret and PINK stories experiencing worsening performance due in part to competing lingerie brands. The Company worked to drive sales through heavy promotional efforts such as offering customers discounts and free items. Although these tactics helped L Brands fight declines in sales, they impacted profit margins and cash flow negatively, also hurting the Company’s liquidity. When asked by market analysts about the sustainability of the Company’s dividend, executives replied that the Company “in its history, ha[d] never reduced the dividend.” Just weeks later, L Brands announced it was cutting its dividend in half to pay down debts. On this news, shares of L brands dropped by 18% on November 20, 2018. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about L Brands, investors suffered damages.

-->

Ideanomics, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Ideanomics bottom line performance was adversely impacted by costs associated with constructing the Company’s U.S. infrastructure and hiring a new executive team. Based on this fact, the Company had very little chance to meet its 2018 EBITDA guidance. At the same time, the Company’s margins from its oil trading and consumer electronics businesses were too low to maintain viability. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Ideanomics, investors suffered damages.

-->

Netflix, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Netflix failed to hit its target for new subscribers gained in the second quarter of 2019. The Company also lost subscribers within the United States during the same quarter. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Netflix, investors suffered damages.

-->

National General Holdings Corp.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. National General conspired with Wells Fargo in a scheme to force Wells Fargo’s customers to pay for auto insurance that they did not need or want. The Company possessed evidence that the customers already had insurance coverage through their own means, but forced them into expensive and unnecessary “CPI” policies anyways. The New York Times exposed the insurance scheme on July 27, 2017, resulting in National General facing regulatory investigations, civil lawsuits, and scrutiny from Congress. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about National General, investors suffered damages.

-->

Oasmia Pharmaceutical AB

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Oasmia engaged in deceptive and improper related-party transactions with Alceco International S.A. and Ardenia Investment LTD. These improper transactions resulted in millions of Swedish Kronor not accounted for in the Company’s books. Other transactions related to the Company’s patents were also “carried out in a doubtful way.” Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Oasmia, investors suffered damages.

-->

Reckitt Benckiser Group plc

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Reckitt and its senior executives developed a scheme to mislead both investors and the public about its Suboxone Film product, including health and safety risks. This scheme also facilitated the abuse of opiates by U.S. consumers. As part of the scheme, Reckitt touted the safety of the Suboxone Film product while falsely constructing safety concerns about traditional Suboxone tablets. Reckitt’s scheme enriched the company by more than $3 billion, but eventually resulted in investigations by both the DOJ and the FTC. Reckitt settled the investigations into Suboxone Film for $1.4 billion in what was called the “largest opioid settlement in US history.” Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Reckitt, investors suffered damages.

-->

Omnicell, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Omnicell recognized revenue from various transactions before it had completed its obligations. The Company used improper accounting to reach revenue targets. In fact, Omnicell was suffering from weaker demand for its new project lines. This resulted in the Company being forced to write-off a considerable amount of inventory. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Omnicell, investors suffered damages.

-->

Verb Technology Company, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Verb did not have a contract with Oracle to jointly bring to market the Company’s notifiCRM product. Based on this fact, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Verb, investors suffered damages.

-->

CannTrust Holdings Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. CannTrust was growing cannabis in its Pelham greenhouse without regulatory approval as the applications were still pending. In general, the Pelham greenhouse did not comply with regulations. This resulted in an increased likelihood of the Company facing an inventory hold by Health Canada, resulting in the Company’s customers seeking products from other cannabis suppliers. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about CannTrust, investors suffered damages.

-->

Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Diebold experienced delays and slowdowns in a number of areas, including system rollouts, customer decision-making, and the order-to-revenue conversion cycle. These delays had a negative impact on the Company’s operations and its service business. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Diebold, investors suffered damages.

-->