Archives: Cases

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. U.S. Xpress’s dedicated division was impacted negatively by a truck shortage. Dedicated accounts and driver retention were also negatively impacted by the performance of shipping patterns. The Company’s OTR division was forced to support its dedicated division based on these circumstances. The Company understated its insurance claim expenses due to two large liability events. Additionally, the Company’s cost per mile for driver wages and contractor costs exceeded customer estimates. 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 U.S. Xpress, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. The Offering Documents did not disclose a significant change in GreenSky’s merchant business mix, a change that caused a drop in transaction revenue. Months after the IPO closed, the Company released a press release stating that its transaction-fee rate was considerably below that achieved in the third quarter of 2017. The Company blamed this drop on a general labor shortage, and a shifting loan mix. Based on these facts, the Company’s statements and Offering Documents were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about GreenSky, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Synchrony falsely assured the public that its strong underwriting practices had resulted in a portfolio of loans that was of higher quality than that of its competitors. The Company had actually relaxed standards and issued credit cards to higher-risk borrowers in an effort to sustain growth. After the Company disclosed poor loan performance on April 28, 2017, Synchrony declared that it had tightened its credit standards, but falsely represented those changes as minor. Synchrony had in fact made significant changes to underwriting standards, and concealed from the public that those changes damaged its relationship with key retail partners, including Walmart. When the market learned the truth about Synchrony, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Costco failed to maintain appropriate internal controls over financial reporting. The Company admitted on October 4, 2018, that “in its upcoming fiscal 2018 Annual Report on Form 10-K, it expects to report a material weakness in internal control. The weakness relates to general information technology controls in the areas of user access and program change-management over certain information technology systems that support the Company’s financial reporting processes. The access issues relate to the extent of privileges afforded users authorized to access company systems.” 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 Costco, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Apogee failed to build the necessary workforce to increase production. The Company proved incapable of hiring, training, and retaining the necessary new employees. This failure negatively impacted the Company’s productivity and profit margin. 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 Apogee, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Fitbit experienced increasingly serious competition and faced difficulty in differentiating itself from companies including Apple that were creating similar products. Based on this competition, demand and sell-through for the company’s products were negatively impacted. This led to Fitbit’s sales and financial results weakening at the same time as its growth was slowing. Despite the weakening, the Company’s financial guidance was overstated. 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 Fitbit, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Align offered larger discounts to promote its orthodontics solution, Invisalign. These discounts and promotions had a material impact on revenue. 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 Align, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Honeywell’s asbestos liability from the Bendix subsidiary was greater than initially communicated. The Company utilized improper accounting methods in relation to the asbestos liability. 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 Honeywell, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Nektar’s clinical-stage drug NKTR-214 faced multiple issues, and the Company’s attempt to improve it by “pegylating” IL-2 failed. The Company did not disclose that previous studies attempting to pegylate IL-2 also failed. The extended half-life for NKTR-214 was unlikely to provide benefits and also created safety concerns.  NKTR-214 was less effective than IL-2 by itself. 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 Nektar, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. India Globalization had initiated significant change to its business model to increase the Company’s attractiveness to cannabis and blockchain investors. The Company inflated its chances for success in these markets by overstating relationships with manufacturers, distributors, and other business partners. This resulted in the New York Stock Exchange delisting India Globalization’s shares. As a result of these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about India Globalization, investors suffered damages.