Type: Securities Fraud case filed

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Overstock.com’s coin offering was highly problematic and potentially illegal; and (2) the company’s Medici business was hemorrhaging money. When the truth was revealed to the investing public, shares dropped, causing shareholders harm.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Solid Biosciences’ lead drug candidate, SGT-001, had a high likelihood of causing adverse events in patients; (2) Solid Biosciences misled investors regarding the toxicity of SGT-001; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements in the Registration Statement regarding Solid Biosciences’ business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading. When the truth was revealed to the investing public, Solid Biosciences’ share price fell $18.19 per share in the aggregate, causing shareholders harm.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Geron misled investors and the public about the results of a clinical drug study of imetelstat called IMbark. Based on this fact, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Geron, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Foot Locker’s vendors were transitioning to selling through various online retailers, diminishing the utility of Foot Locker’s large number of brick and mortar stores and the once-high value of its exclusivity relationships with those vendors; (2) competition with online retailers had increased the pricing competition Foot Locker faced while also lowering demand at its stores; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about Foot Locker’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the truth was revealed to the investing public, shares fell, causing shareholders harm.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Facebook violated its own purported data privacy policies by allowing third parties to access the personal data of millions of Facebook users without the users’ consent; (2) discovery of the foregoing conduct would foreseeably subject Facebook to heightened regulatory scrutiny; and (3) as a result, Facebook’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth was revealed to the investing public, shares dropped, causing shareholders harm.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market throughout the class period. Vuzix used stock promotion strategies and tactics to unlawfully boost its share price. The Company used these misleading promotional tactics to raise $30 million at an all-time high stock price. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements and disclosures were false and misleading throughout the class period.  When the market learned the truth about Vuzix, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) BRF employees paid bribes to regulators and politicians to subvert inspections in order to conceal unsanitary practices at the Company’s meatpacking plants; (2) the foregoing conduct, when it came to light, would foreseeably subject BRF and its officers to heightened regulatory enforcement and/or prosecution; and (3) as a result, BRF’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth was revealed to the investing public, shares of BRF fell $1.83 or over 19% to close at $7.59 per share on March 5, 2018, causing shareholders harm.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ulta Beauty was engaged in the widespread practice of repackaging returned cosmetics and re-shelving them alongside unblemished products to sell at full retail price; and (2) as a result, Ulta Beauty’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth was revealed to the investing public, shares dropped, causing shareholders harm.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Atlas failed to employ internal controls to ensure appropriate accounting practices, including, but not limited to, the calculation of certain loss reserves; (2) Atlas’s internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak; (3) consequently, Atlas’s financial statements were inaccurate and misleading, including by understating certain loss reserves; and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about Atlas’s business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth about these actions was revealed to the investing public, shares dropped, causing shareholders harm.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were material weaknesses in WageWorks’ systems of internal controls and that its practices and controls were ineffective; (2) WageWorks failed to adequately manage and assess risk relating to certain complex transactions, including certain government contracts; (3) WageWorks improperly recognized revenue thereby inflating its earnings and related financial metrics; and (4) as a result, WageWorks’ financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth was revealed to the investing public, shares dropped causing shareholders harm.