Archives: Cases

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Conduent misled investors by claiming that it had fixed efficiency problems due to operating on multiple technology platforms by February 2018. Contrary to the Company’s earlier claims, it disclosed in November 2018 that “outdated and historically under-invested legacy IT infrastructure has caused major disruptions to our operations and impacted clients and delivery performance.” 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 Conduent, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Conagra failed to undertake adequate due diligence before the acquisition of Pinnacle Foods. Pinnacle’s three leading brands were suffering due to poor innovation and execution. Due to its poor performance, Pinnacle was pushing promotional deals with retailers to attempt to boost sales. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Conagra, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, ZIV made false and misleading statements to the market. ZIV ETNs were not useful for managing daily risk. Credit Suisse created ZIV to fail if certain market conditions came to pass. Credit Suisse sold more inverse ETNs than the market could efficiently handle, in order to cause a collapse. This allowed Credit Suisse to manipulate ETNs by causing liquidity events. When the market learned the truth about ZIV, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Revlon failed to develop metrics to monitor its enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system after it was implemented. The Company also failed to develop and maintain appropriate internal controls on the recording and accounting of inventory, receivables, net sales, and cost of goods sold in the ERP system. The Company was incapable of maintaining controls on other related accounting activities, such as approving manual journal entries. Due to the poor implementation of its ERP system, Revlon failed to fulfill order shipments totaling $64 million, causing $53.6 million in incremental charges to triage declining customer service levels. 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 Revlon, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Health Insurance Innovations derived a significant portion of its revenues from third parties. The third parties used deceptive practices to sell the Company’s products, such as overstating policy’s coverages. Any regulatory scrutiny of these third parties would materially impact the Company’s operations. 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 Health Insurance Innovations, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Inogen overstated the total addressable market (“TAM”) for its portable oxygen concentrators, while also misstating the basis for its TAM calculations. The Company claimed that sales growth was based on an effective salesforce, when the growth was actually based on deceptive tactics used on an elderly client base. The Company’s domestic growth was inflated and eroding other areas of its business. In fact, very little of Inogen’s sales were from the more stable Medicare market. 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 Inogen, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Corcept made improper payments to doctors to promote its drug, Korlym. The Company also heavily promoted the drug for off-label uses. Corcept’s single specialty pharmacy was a related party. The Company inflated its sales and revenues using questionable sales practices through a related party. 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 Corcept, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Alta Mesa and Kingfisher were touted as “superior quality” and “[w]orld [c]lass” assets compared to other oil & gas companies. In fact, the Company faced serious operational setbacks. Other major oil companies had moved assets away from the region that Alta Mesa operates in. The Company made a series of corrective disclosures, with the final disclosure occurring on February 25, 2019, when the Company announced a delay in the release of its 2018 financial results. Over the course of these corrective disclosures, Alta Mesa stock lost 95% of its value. When the market learned the truth about Alta Mesa, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Mobile TeleSystems and a subsidiary engaged in a scheme to pay $420 million in bribes to officials in Uzbekistan. The Company disclosed in 2014 that it was the target of an investigation by the SEC and DOJ for its operations in Uzbekistan, and knew or should have known it would be subject to fines based on its business practices there. The Company was eventually forced to pay approximately $850 million in criminal penalties related to the bribery scheme. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Mobile TeleSystems, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. NIO made no effort to build a manufacturing facility for its electric vehicles, instead relying on an obscure manufacturer owned by the Chinese government, JAC Auto, to build its products. The government’s reduction of subsidies for electric vehicles negatively impacted the Company’s sales. 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 NIO, investors suffered damages.