Type: Securities Fraud case filed

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.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Akorn’s failure to comply with FDA data integrity requirements would jeopardize Fresenius’s acquisition of Akorn; (2) Akorn lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, Akorn’s 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.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) MiMedx was engaged in a “channel-stuffing” scheme designed to inappropriately recognize revenue that had not yet been realized; (2) MiMedx lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, MiMedx’s publicly disseminated financial statements were materially false and misleading. 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) Kraton was transitioning customers to Brazilian-produced Cariflex even though certain customers had already rejected that product; (2) Kraton’s Brazilian-produced Cariflex was available to customers when in fact certain customers had already rejected that product; (3) Kraton lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about Kraton’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 dropped, causing shareholders harm.

According to the Complaint, Funko made materially false and misleading statements in the documents supporting the company’s IPO. Funko’s profitability and growth prospects were not as strong as Funko represented in its documentation. As a result of the failure to disclose this information, Funko’s financial statements, claims about the company’s business operations, and financial prospects were materially false and misleading in connection to the IPO. According to the lawsuit, when accurate information about Funko became apparent in the market, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that Bristol-Myers’ CheckMate-026 trial was more likely to fail than Defendants were representing; (2) that Bristol- Myers’ CheckMate-026 trial failed more severely than the Company indicated it did in the Company’s August 5, 2016 announcements and disclosures; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Bristol-Myers’ business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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) defendants were engaged in a fraudulent and illegal price-fixing conspiracy; (2) Patterson’s revenue and earnings were fraudulently inflated by the illegal scheme; (3) the scheme was aimed at prohibiting sales to and price negotiations by group purchasing organizations which represented small and independent dental practices; (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about Patterson’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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) Henry Schein was engaging in unethical, anti-competitive behavior through agreements with Benco Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc., in violation of United States antitrust laws; (2) Henry Schein engaged in such behavior, in part, to help maintain profitability in a consolidating health care industry; (3) these violations of U.S. antitrust laws would result in heightened scrutiny by the federal government and a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”); (4) Henry Schein failed to maintain adequate internal controls; and (5) as a result, defendants’ statements about Henry Schein’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 dropped, causing shareholders harm.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Grupo Televisa executives engaged in an unlawful bribery scheme involving Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) executives; (2) discovery of the foregoing conduct would likely subject Grupo Televisa to heightened regulatory scrutiny; and (3) Grupo Televisa lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting. When the truth was revealed to the investing public, shares of Grupo Televisa fell $0.48 per share to close at $19.50 per share on November 14, 2017, causing shareholders harm.

According to the Complaint, the Company issued false and misleading statements. A10 Networks had problems with its internal controls that required an Audit Committee investigation. The Company’s revenues since the fourth quarter of 2015 were false due to improper revenue recognition which prompted an investigation. Based on these facts, A10 Network’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth was revealed to the market, the share price dropped, causing shareholders harm. The deadline to move for lead plaintiff was extended from May 21, 2018, to a revised lead plaintiff deadline of July 27, 2018.