Canada Goose Holdings Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Canada Goose sourced the down and fur materials in its products using inhumane treatment of animals. This unethical treatment of animals was not in compliance with FTC regulations on false advertising specifically on the Company’s sourcing practices. These improper actions resulted in an ongoing FTC investigation into the Company for false advertising. 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 Canada Goose, investors suffered damages.

-->

Carbonite, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Carbonite’s Server Backup VM Edition product suffered from deep quality flaws and poor technology. The Company received many negative reviews of the product from its customers. The product was so flawed that it acted as a “disruptive” factor amongst Carbonite’s sales force, constraining salespeople from closing several large deals in fiscal year 2019. 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 Carbonite, investors suffered damages.

-->

Cardinal Health, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Cardinal Health touted that Cordis Corp., which it acquired in March 2015, would greatly benefit from leveraging the Company’s inventory and supply chain technology. The Company also made false statements that it had properly “reserve[d] for inventory obsolescence” and that “[i]nventories presented in the consolidated balance sheets [were] net of reserves for excess and obsolete 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 Cardinal Health, investors suffered damages.

-->

Curaleaf Holdings, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Curaleaf marketed its CBD products on both its website and on social media as drugs and dietary supplements, contrary to regulations. The Company sold unapproved animal drugs on its website as well. These sales and marketing practices resulted in a warning letter from the FDA. 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 Curaleaf, investors suffered damages.

-->

2U, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. 2U faced stiffening competition in the online education space, especially in the graduate program area. At the same time, the Company faced program-specific issues that hurt performance. These factors combined to make the Company’s business model unsustainable, forcing it to slow program launches. 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 2U, investors suffered damages.

-->

Capital One Finance Corporation

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Capital One failed to maintain appropriate information security practices, including failing to protect its customers’ personal information from hackers and other bad actors. In fact, the company was open to cyber-attack. 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 Capital One investors suffered damages.

-->

3M Company

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. 3M held overwhelming amounts of evidence internally documenting the toxic nature of its man-made chemicals or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). The evidence, which spanned decades, matched February 2018 claims by Minnesota’s Attorney General. The Company has a track record of downplaying negative information about PFAS. The Company’s knowledge has created significant legal exposure for the Company at multiple levels of government related to the intentional concealment of PFAS toxicity. 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 3M, investors suffered damages.

-->

Mallinckrodt plc

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Mallinckrodt’s H.P. Acthar Gel (“Acthar”) was a non-viable treatment for ALS based on serious safety concerns. Despite these safety issues, the Company touted Acthar as a viable ALS treatment. Based on these facts, the Company’s statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Mallinckrodt, investors suffered damages.

-->

Just Energy Group Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Just Energy suffered from both customer enrollment and nonpayment problems. The problems make it likely that the Company would be forced into an impairment charge to its accounts receivable. The Company also failed to maintain adequate internal controls over financial reporting. 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 Just Energy, investors suffered damages.

-->

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Karyopharm repeatedly hyped the commercial prospects of its drug selinexor. The Company focused on the safety and efficacy of the drug, describing it as having a  “predictable and manageable tolerability profile,” adding that it had a “very nice safety profile,” and was “well tolerated” by patients. In reality, the FDA found that “[t]reatment with selinexor is associated with significant toxicity” and has “limited efficacy.” 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 Karyopharm, investors suffered damages.

-->