NEW YORK, Dec. 04, 2019 (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 ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN), Domo, Inc. (DOMO), Infosys Limited (INFY), and Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ZYNE). 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.
ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN)
Class Period: February 28, 2019 to October 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 16, 2019
On July 17, 2019, ADTRAN announced “preliminary” earnings for second quarter 2019 due to its ongoing assessment of its current and previously reported excess and obsolete inventory reserves (“E&O reserves”).
On this news, the company’s share price fell $3.69 per share, or over 23%, to close at $12.13 per share on July 18, 2019.
Then, on October 9, 2019, the company announced that its “revenue this quarter has been significantly impacted by a pause in shipments to a Tier 1 customer in Latin America and the continued slowdown in the spending at an international Tier 1 customer.”
On this news, the company’s share price fell $2.10 per share, or over 19%, to close at $8.81 per share on October 10, 2019.
The complaint, filed on October 17, 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 that: (1) there were material weaknesses in the company’s internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a result, certain E&O reserves had been improperly reported; (3) as a result, the company’s financial results for certain periods were misstated; (4) there would be a pause in shipments to the company’s Latin American customer; and (5) 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 ADTRAN class action go to: https://bespc.com/adtn
Domo, Inc. (DOMO)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) on or around June 28, 2018 and/or between June 28, 2018 and September 5, 2019 (the “Class Period”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 16, 2019
On June 1, 2018, Domo filed a registration statement with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which was declared effective by the SEC on June 28, 2018 (the “Registration Statement”). On June 29, 2018, Domo filed a prospectus in connection with the IPO (the “Prospectus”), which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the “Offering Documents”). On or around June 29, 2018, Domo’s Class B common stock began trading on the NASDAQ. On July 3, 2018, Domo closed its IPO, in which the company issued and sold 10,580,000 shares of Class B common stock at $21.00 per share.
On September 5, 2019, Domo issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second quarter of 2020. Although Domo reported positive earnings news, the company also provided guidance for the third quarter and full fiscal year 2020 that fell short of market expectations.
Then, on September 6, 2019, JMP Securities dropped its Domo target by $10.00 to $37.00, citing the “disappointing” report and guidance, weakness in Domo’s enterprise and international businesses, and billings growth that was about half of what was expected.
On this news, Domo’s stock price fell $9.44 per share, or 37.45%, to close at $15.77 per share on September 6, 2019, or 24.9% below the IPO price of $21.00.
The complaint, filed October 17, 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) Domo was experiencing weakness in its enterprise and international businesses; (ii) Domo’s billings growth had dramatically slowed; (iii) all of the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the company’s financial results; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein and the company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Domo class action go to: https://bespc.com/domo
Infosys Limited (INFY)
Class Period: July 7, 2018 to October 20, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2019
On October 21, 2019, Infosys disclosed that it had received whistleblower reports alleging “unethical practices” by the Company’s executive management. An unnamed group sent letters to Infosys’ Board and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that the company had taken “unethical” steps to inappropriately boost short-term revenue and profit. These letters also alleged that the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Salil Parekh, was bypassing standard reviews of large contracts in order to skirt accounting scrutiny.
On this news, the price of Infosys shares fell by more than 16% to close at $9.29 per share.
The complaint, filed on October 23, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly recognized revenues to inflate short-term profits; (2) the Company’s CEO, Salil Parekh, bypassed reviews and approvals for large deals to avoid accounting scrutiny; (3) management pressured the Company’s finance team to hide information from auditors and the Company’s Board of Directors; and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the Infosys class action, go to: https://bespc.com/infy
Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ZYNE)
Class Period: March 11, 2019 to September 17, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2019
Zynerba is developing Zygel (ZYN002), a transdermal CBD gel, which is presently in clinical trial. In April 2018, Zynerba initiated the Phase 2 of BELIEVE 1 (Open Label Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Zygel Administered as a Transdermal Gel to Children and Adolescents with Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathy (“DDE”)) clinical trial (“BELIEVE 1 Trial”), a six-month open label multi-dose clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Zygel in children and adolescents (ages three to seventeen years) with DEE as classified by the International League Against Epilepsy (“ILAE”).
On September 18, 2019, during pre-market hours, Zynerba issued a press release announcing results from the BELIEVE 1 Trial evaluating topical gel Zygel in children and adolescents with DEE (the “September 2019 Press Release”). While Zynerba asserted that Zygel was well-tolerated in the September 2019 Press Release, it also disclosed that, among patients enrolled in the BELIEVE 1 Trial, the rate of treatment emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) was 96%, the rate of treatment related adverse events (“TRAEs”) was 60%, and there were ten patients who reported serious adverse events (“SAEs”), of which, “two SAEs (lower respiratory tract infection and status epilepticus) were determined to be possibly related to treatment.”
On this news, Zynerba’s stock price fell $2.46 per share, or 21.77%, to close at $8.84 per share on September 18, 2019.
The complaint, filed on October 23, 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) Zygel was proving unsafe and not well-tolerated in the BELIEVE 1 Trial; (ii) the foregoing created a foreseeable, heightened risk that Zynerba would fail to secure the necessary regulatory approvals for commercializing Zygel for the treatment of DEE in children and adolescents; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Zynerba class action go to: https://bespc.com/zyne
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.