U.S. markets closed
  • S&P Futures

    3,397.50
    +4.00 (+0.12%)
     
  • Dow Futures

    27,628.00
    +47.00 (+0.17%)
     
  • Nasdaq Futures

    11,494.75
    +2.50 (+0.02%)
     
  • Russell 2000 Futures

    1,605.00
    +2.90 (+0.18%)
     
  • Crude Oil

    38.60
    +0.04 (+0.10%)
     
  • Gold

    1,908.90
    +3.20 (+0.17%)
     
  • Silver

    24.52
    +0.10 (+0.43%)
     
  • EUR/USD

    1.1823
    +0.0010 (+0.08%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    0.8010
    -0.0400 (-4.76%)
     
  • Vix

    32.46
    +4.91 (+17.82%)
     
  • GBP/USD

    1.3029
    +0.0008 (+0.06%)
     
  • USD/JPY

    104.7540
    -0.0810 (-0.08%)
     
  • BTC-USD

    13,086.29
    -10.25 (-0.08%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    261.10
    -2.31 (-0.88%)
     
  • FTSE 100

    5,792.01
    -68.27 (-1.16%)
     
  • Nikkei 225

    23,446.23
    -48.11 (-0.20%)
     

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Blink Charging, Braskem, Fastly, and Progenity and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Bragar Eagel & Squire
·8 mins read

NEW YORK, Oct. 07, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ: BLNK), Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK), Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY), and Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG). 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.

Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ: BLNK)

Class Period: March 6, 2020 to August 19, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020

On August 19, 2020, analyst Culper Research issued a report on Blink Charging, contending that “the Company has vastly exaggerated the size of its EV charging network in order to siphon money from the pockets of investors to insiders. Blink claims that ‘EV drivers can easily charge at any of its 15,000 charging stations’ but we estimate the Company’s functional public charging station network consists of just 2,192 stations, a mere 15% of this claim.” Culper continued that its “investigators confirmed what Blink’s financials already suggest: almost no one uses Blink’s charging stations, many of which are in utterly decrepit condition.”

On this news, Blink’s stock price fell from its August 18, 2020 closing price of $10.23 per share to an August 20, 2020 closing price of $7.94. This represents a two day drop of approximately 22.4%.

The complaint, filed on August 24, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) many of Blink’s charging stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, or non-accessible; (2) Blink’s purported partnerships and expansions with other companies were overstated; (3) the purported growth of the Company’s network has been overstated; and (4) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Blink class action go to: https://bespc.com/BLNK

Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK)

Class Period: May 6, 2016 to July 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020

On April 2, 2019, media sources and, later, Braskem, disclosed that the Company had been sued by local authorities in connection with a geological event it had purportedly caused in the state of Alagoas, Brazil. Specifically, Braskem disclosed, in relevant part, that the Company “ha[d] become aware, through the media, of a lawsuit filed against it by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office, both of the State of Alagoas.” The Company also disclosed that the lawsuits were “requesting the freezing of amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion to guarantee any potential damages owed to the general public affected by the geological phenomenon which occurred in districts near the rock salt extraction area in Maceió.”

On this news, Braskem’s American Depositary Share (“ADS”) price fell $1.60 per share over two trading days, or 5.98%, to close at $25.14 per share on April 3, 2020.

On July 9, 2020, Braskem disclosed that authorities in northeastern Brazil had advised the Company that the geological damage from its salt mining operations was more widespread than initial estimates. Specifically, among other things, 1,918 properties needed to be evacuated because of the geological event associated with Braskem’s mining operations, and Braskem estimated that moving the residents would cost the Company an additional R$850 million in possible payments to those residents, with another additional R$750 million in expenses to “definitively” shut down Braskem's salt mining operations.

On this news, Braskem’s ADS price fell $0.59 per share, or 6.20%, to close at $8.93 per share on July 9, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 25, 2020, 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) Braskem’s salt mining operations were unsafe and presented a significant danger to surrounding areas, including nearly two thousand properties; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk that Braskem would be subjected to remedial liabilities, including, but not limited to, increased governmental and/or regulatory oversight or enforcement, significant monetary and reputational damage, and/or the permanent closure of one or more of its salt mining operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from Braskem’s salt mining operations were unsustainable; (iv) Braskem downplayed the true scope and severity of the Company's liability with respect to its salt mining operations; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Braskem securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/BAK

Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY)

Class Period: May 6, 2020 to August 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020

Fastly is the provider of an edge cloud platform. Fastly’s edge cloud platform purportedly enables “customers to create great digital experiences quickly, securely, and reliably by processing, serving, and securing [its] customers’ applications as close to their end-users as possible.”

On August 5, 2020, Fastly held its second quarter (“Q2”) 2020 earnings conference call. During the call, defendants disclosed that ByteDance, the Chinese company that operates the wildly popular mobile app TikTok, was Fastly’s largest customer in Q2 2020, and that TikTok represented about 12% of Fastly’s revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2020.

This news shocked the market, as TikTok had been under heavy scrutiny by U.S. officials and others since at least late 2019 due to fears that the data it collects from its users could be accessed by the Chinese government. Indeed, on July 31, 2020, President Trump announced a plan to ban TikTok in the U.S. over national security concerns. As Fastly’s Chief Executive Officer admitted on the Q2 2020 earnings call, “any ban of the TikTok app by the US would create uncertainty around our ability to support this customer[,]” and “the loss of this customer’s traffic would have an impact on our business.”

On this news, Fastly’s share price fell $19.28, or approximately 17.7% from the previous trading day’s closing price of $108.92, to close at $89.64 on August 6, 2020.

Fastly’s share price continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on August 7, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 27, 2020, alleges that during the Class Period defendants knowingly and/or recklessly made false and/or misleading statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Fastly’s largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) that there was a material risk that Fastly’s business would be adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) that, as a result, 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 Fastly securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/FSLY

Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG)

Class Period: Common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement, as amended, issued in connection with Progenity’s June 2020 IPO (the “Registration Statement”).

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 27, 2020

On or about June 22, 2020, defendants conducted Progenity’s IPO. In the IPO, defendants sold over 6.6 million shares of Progenity common stock to the investing public at a price of $15 per share, generating over $100 million in gross offering proceeds.

Shortly after the IPO, the price of Progenity stock suffered significant price declines. By August 14, 2020, Progenity stock closed at just $7.71 per share – nearly 50% below the $15 per share price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less than two months previously.

The complaint, filed on August 28, 2020, alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make the necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO, rendering numerous statements provided therein materially false and misleading: (i) that Progenity had overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from operations for the historical financial periods provided in the Registration Statement; (ii) that Progenity would need to refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly results; and (iii) that Progenity was suffering from accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with respect to the Company’s testing volumes, revenues and product pricing.

For more information on the Progenity class action go to: https://bespc.com/PROG

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.

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com