A.O. Smith Corporation

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. A.O. Smith maintained undisclosed connections with Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain (“UTP”). The Company completed 75% of its China product sales through UTP. A.O. Smith and UTP conspired to engage in channel stuffing by inflating inventories to about double their normal levels. The Company used the UTP relationship in inflate sales by as much as 8% and to conceal worsening sales in China. The Company increased its China cash reserves by $530 million to engage in its channel stuffing and sales manipulation scheme. 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 A.O. Smith, investors suffered damages.

-->

Livent Corporation

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Livent’s supply contract with Nemaska Lithium Inc. was terminated. As a result, the Company was forced to fulfill customer contracts using different vendors with unfavorable terms, reducing revenues and lowering margins. Livent had a long-standing contract to supply lithium hydroxide to a customer at a significantly lower price than its existing contacts. When the customer increased its orders, the Company’s margins were further squeezed. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about Livent, investors suffered damages.

-->

Intersect ENT, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Intersect failed to maintain the necessary force of reimbursement representatives to ensure physicians’ access to SINUVA, its sinus implant. This caused the Company’s sales force to concentrate on helping with reimbursement as opposed to driving sales growth. Physicians became less likely to adopt the Company’s products due to transaction costs and delays in reimbursement. Intersect eventually hired staff to address these issues. 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 Intersect, investors suffered damages.

-->

Momo Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Momo failed to maintain adequate controls and compliance procedures to prevent inappropriate financial reporting activity. The Company’s Tantan dating app was not compliant with Chinese laws. This put the app at risk of being removed from Chinese app stores at the direction of government officials. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Momo, investors suffered damages.

-->

Equity Bancshares, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Equity Bancshares failed to maintain appropriate internal controls to assess credit risk. Due to the lack of these controls, a portion of the Company’s loans faced an increased loss risk. In fact, the Company was likely to face losses based on the inappropriate loans on its books. 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 Equity Bancshares, investors suffered damages.

-->

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. RCI regularly engaged in transactions with its CEO, including lending him large sums of money. These practices could be reasonably expected to lead to heightened regulatory scrutiny. The Company would be unable to file its financial statements in a timely manner due to investigations of these practices. 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 RCI, investors suffered damages.

-->

Whitestone REIT

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Whitestone failed to maintain sufficient internal controls on financial reporting. The Company incorrectly recognized assets and liabilities aligned with its contributions to Pillarstone Capital REIT Operating Partnership LP. The Company’s fiscal statements for fiscal year 2018 overstated revenues and could not be relied upon by investors. 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 Whitestone, investors suffered damages.

-->

Jumia Technologies AG

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Jumia overstated both its current active merchants and active customers. The Company’s statements about orders, cancellations, undelivered orders, and returned orders were not factual and overstated sales. The Company failed to disclose transactions with related parties. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Jumia, investors suffered damages.

-->

Nabriva Therapeutics plc

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Nabriva’s manufacturers were incapable of maintaining good manufacturing practices. Because these manufacturers would be subject to inspection as part of the Company’s New Drug Application for CONTEPO with the FDA. The poor manufacturing practices were likely to hurt the chances of the New Drug Application to be approved. 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 Nabriva, investors suffered damages.

-->

Nokia Corporation

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Nokia acquired Alcatel-Lucent S.A. (“Alcatel”) in November 2016. Alcatel failed to maintain sufficient internal controls, and its business practices were materially non-compliant. Nokia failed to undertake appropriate due diligence before acquiring Alcatel. After the acquisition, the Company allowed the insufficient controls over Alcatel to remain in place. This put the Company at risk of significant criminal and civil penalties. 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 Nokia, investors suffered damages.

-->