NEW YORK, Jan. 02, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Resideo Technologies, Inc. (REZI), Yunji, Inc. (YJ), Plantronics, Inc. (PLT), and Lipocine, Inc. (LPCN). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Resideo Technologies, Inc. (REZI)
Class Period: October 10, 2018 to October 22, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 7, 2019
The Company was formed through a spin-off from Honeywell International Inc. on October 29, 2018. The Company began trading under the ticker symbol “REZI” on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) on October 29, 2018.
The complaint, filed on November 8, 2019, alleges that during the Class Period, Resideo continued to assure investors that the Company was poised to meet its 2018 guidance at the high end of its forecasted range, and more importantly, for 2019 the Company would achieve 4%+ organic growth and ~13% adjusted EBITDA margin. Further, while the Company acknowledged it had experienced operational disruptions (primarily administrative) in connection with the spin-off, defendants repeatedly assured investors that any negative effects of the spin-off were largely “behind [them]” or minimizing and reiterated their fiscal year (“FY”) 2019 guidance for the Company, stating as late as August 8, 2019 that the Company’s performance to date put it on track to make its FY19 revenue guidance. Each of these representations was materially false and misleading when made because defendants failed to disclose the following true facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (a) the negative operational effects of the spin-off were more substantial and persistent than disclosed and had negatively affected the Company’s product sales, supply chain, and gross margins, putting Resideo’s FY19 financial forecasts at risk; and (b) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial guidance lacked a reasonable basis and the Company was not on track to make its FY19 guidance as claimed. As a result of defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions, Resideo stock traded at artificially inflated prices of more than $26 per share during the Class Period.
Then, on October 22, 2019, Resideo shocked investors when it issued its preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2019, announcing that it had missed revenue and earnings targets and was lowering its recently reaffirmed revenue outlook for FY19 by $80 million.
Also on October 22, 2019, the Company announced that defendant Ragan, the Company’s CFO, would be leaving as of November 6, 2019.
Following these disclosures and a significant reduction in the Company’s outlook for free cash flow, Resideo’s stock price declined more than 40%, from a close of $15.23 per share on October 22, 2019 to a close of $9.50 per share on October 23, 2019.
For more information on the Resideo class action go to: https://bespc.com/rezi
Yunji, Inc. (YJ)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with the Company’s May 2019 initial public offering (“IPO” or the “Offering”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 13, 2020
On May 3, 2019, the Company held its IPO in which it sold 11,217,447 shares for $11.00 per share.
On August 22, 2019, the Company disclosed a supply chain restructuring that shifted part of its merchandise sales to its marketplace platform, resulting in a year-over-year decrease in total revenues for second quarter 2019.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $1.21, or nearly 11%, to close at $9.39 per share on August 22, 2019. Yunji’s share price continued to decline by $3.34, or over 35%, over the next three consecutive trading sessions to close at $6.05 per share on August 27, 2019.
By the time this class action was filed, Yunji’s shares were trading as low as $4.40 per share, a nearly 60% decline from the $11 per share IPO price.
The complaint, filed on November 12, 2019, alleges that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company was shifting certain of its sales to its marketplace platform; (2) that this supply chain restructuring was likely to disrupt Yunji’s relationships with suppliers; (3) that this supply chain restructuring was likely to have an adverse impact on the Company’s financial results; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Yunji class action go to: https://bespc.com/yj
Plantronics, Inc. (PLT)
Class Period: July 2, 2018 to November 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 13, 2020
On November 5, 2019, the Company disclosed a $65 million reduction in channel inventory “by reducing sales to channel partners” and decreased its fiscal 2020 guidance, expecting revenue between $1.72 billion and $1.81 billion and adjusted EBITDA between $282 million and $323 million. Plantronics also reported that its Executive Vice President of Global Sales was leaving the Company.
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $14.44 per share, or nearly 37%, to close at $25.00 per share on November 6, 2019.
The complaint, filed on November 13, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had engaged in channel stuffing to artificially boost sales; (2) that the Company’s internal control over inventory levels was not effective; (3) that the Company had not adequately monitored inventory levels ahead of multiple product launches, where the new models would displace demand for aging products; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Plantronics class action go to: https://bespc.com/plt
Lipocine, Inc. (LPCN)
Class Period: March 27, 2019 to November 8, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 14, 2020
Lipocine’s lead product candidate is TLANDO (LPCN 1021), an oral testosterone replacement therapy. The Company has previously submitted New Drug Applications (“NDA”) for TLANDO twice and, both times, received Complete Response Letters (“CRL”) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) rejecting the NDAs. The Company received the first CRL in June 2016 and the second in May 2018.
On March 27, 2019, Lipocine issued a press release announcing new topline results from a study evaluating TLANDO’s effects on blood pressure (one issue cited by the FDA in a prior CRL rejecting TLANDO’s NDA), as well as the Company’s intention to refile the NDA for TLANDO in the second quarter of 2019.
On November 11, 2019, Lipocine issued a press release announcing receipt of a CRL from the FDA regarding its NDA for TLANDO. In the press release, Lipocine advised investors that the FDA had again rejected the NDA for TLANDO—this time because an efficacy trial had not met three of its secondary endpoints.
On this news, Lipocine’s stock price fell $1.93 per share, or 70.7%, to close at $0.80 per share on November 11, 2019.
The Complaint, filed on November 14, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the results from Lipocine’s clinical studies of TLANDO were insufficient to demonstrate the drug’s efficacy; (ii) accordingly, Lipocine’s third NDA for TLANDO was highly likely to be found deficient by the FDA; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Lipocine class action go to: https://bespc.com/lpcn
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.