U.S. markets closed

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Hallmark Financial, Grand Canyon Education, Conn’s, and Elanco Animal Health and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, June 24, 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 Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (HALL), Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE), Conn’s, Inc. (CONN), and Elanco Animal Health Incorporated (ELAN). 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.

Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (HALL)

Class Period: March 5, 2019 to March 17, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2020

On March 2, 2020, Hallmark Financial announced that it had decided to exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business and reported a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $2.10, or more than 14%, to close at $12.23 per share on March 3, 2020.

On March 11, 2020, Hallmark Financial disclosed that it had dismissed its independent auditor, BDO USA, LLP (“BDO”), due to a disagreement regarding estimates for reserves for unpaid losses, among other things.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $2.39, or over 29%, to close at $5.71 per share on March 12, 2020.

On March 17, 2020, Hallmark Financial filed with the SEC a letter from BDO in which BDO stated “BDO expanded significantly the scope of its audit on January 31, 2020, with respect to which a substantial portion of the requests had not been received and/or tested prior to our termination.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.08, or 2.5%, to close at $3.12 per share on March 18, 2020.

The complaint, filed on May 5, 2020, 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 lacked effective internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related to reserves for unpaid losses; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; (3) that, as a result, Hallmark Financial would be forced to report a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years; (4) that, as a result, Hallmark Financial would exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; and (5) 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 Hallmark Financial class action go to: https://bespc.com/HALL

Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)

Class Period: January 1, 2018 to January 27, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2020

The complaint, filed on May 12, 2020, alleges that the Company inflated Grand Canyon’s financial results by using a non-profit independent entity, Grand Canyon University (“GCU”) as an off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon was able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of revenue. Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading statements to investors describing GCU as a “non-profit” and “independent” institution and misstating Grand Canyon’s role as a third-party provider of education services. As a result of Defendants’ misrepresentations, shares of Grand Canyon’s common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Investors slowly began learning the truth of the relationship between the Company and GCU, culminating with Citron Research publishing a report on January 28, 2020 outlining the intricate and allegedly unlawful relationship between the Company and GCU.

Following the publication of the Citron Research report, Grand Canyon shares declined approximately 8% to close at $84.07 per share on January 28, 2020.

For more information on the Grand Canyon Education class action go to: https://bespc.com/LOPE

Conn’s, Inc. (CONN)

Class Period: September 3, 2019 to December 9, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 14, 2020

Conn’s is a specialty retailer that sells branded durable consumer goods. Conn’s has two reportable segments: (i) retail, which includes product categories such as furniture, home appliance, consumer electronics, and home office; and (ii) credit, which includes the Company’s in-house consumer credit programs.

On December 10, 2019, before the market opened, Conn’s reported its third quarter 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company reported retail revenues of $280.3 million, compared to $284.1 million in the prior year period. Conn’s attributed the revenue decline to a decrease in same store sales, which “reflects underwriting adjustments made during the three months ended October 31, 2019.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $6.85 per share, or over 33%, to close at $13.65 per share on December 10, 2019.

The complaint, filed on May 15, 2020, 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 Conn’s was experiencing an increase in first payment defaults and 60-plus day delinquencies; (2) that, as a result, Conn’s was reasonably likely to record an increase to its provision for bad debts; (3) that the Company made certain underwriting adjustments, including tightening its standards for new customers and online applicants; (4) that, as a result, the Company’s same-store sales would be adversely impacted; and (5) 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 Conn’s class action go to: https://bespc.com/CONN

Elanco Animal Health Incorporated (ELAN)

Class Period: January 10, 2020 to May 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020

Elanco is an animal health company that develops, manufactures, and markets products for companion and food animals. Its four primary categories are: Companion Animal Disease Prevention (“CA Disease Prevention”), which offers parasiticides that protect pets from worms, fleas and ticks; Companion Animal Therapeutics (“CA Therapeutics”), which offers treatments for pain, osteoarthritis, otitis, as well as cardiovascular and dermatology indications; Food Animal Future Protein & Health (“FA Future Protein & Health”), which includes vaccines, nutritional enzymes, and antibiotics; and Food Animal Ruminants & Swine (“FA Ruminants & Swine”), which develops food animal products used extensively in ruminant and swine production.

On May 7, 2020, Elanco announced its first quarter 2020 financial results, reporting revenue of $657.7 million and earnings per share of -$0.12, reflecting “a reduction of approximately $60 million in channel inventory.” The Company’s Chief Executive Officer attributed the disappointing results to “distributor performance,” among other things, and stated that Elanco planned “to tighten [its] approach across many facets of [its] distributor relationships.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.05, or over 13%, to close at $19.88 per share on May 7, 2020.

The complaint, filed on May 20, 2020, 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, after consolidating its distributors from eight to four, the Company increased the amount of inventory, including companion animal products, held by each distributor; (2) that Elanco’s distributors were not experiencing sufficient demand to sell through the inventory; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s revenue was reasonably likely to decline; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Elanco would reduce its channel inventory with respect to companion animal products; and (5) 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 Elanco class action go to: https://bespc.com/ELAN

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.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com