U.S. Markets close in 55 mins

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Abeona, AZZ, Under Armour, and UP Fintech and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

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 Abeona Therapeutics, Inc. (ABEO), AZZ, Inc. (AZZ), Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA, UAA), and UP Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR). 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.

Abeona Therapeutics, Inc. (ABEO)

Class Period: May 31, 2018 to September 23, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 2, 2019

EB-101 for the treatment of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (“RDEB”) is one of Abeona’s lead programs.  From preliminary clinical data and expert input, the Company expected EB-101 to be a potential treatment choice for most wounds, and believes it is currently the only product candidate being evaluated as a treatment for larger wounds.

Results from a completed Phase I/​II study that enrolled seven patients with chronic RDEB wounds at Stanford University purportedly showed that EB-101 was well-tolerated and resulted in significant and durable wound healing. 

Abeona expected to initiate a pivotal clinical trial evaluating the potential of EB-101 for the treatment of RDEB in the middle of 2019.  The so-called VITAL Study would be a multicenter, randomized, Phase III clinical trial assessing ten to fifteen patients treated with EB-101.

On September 23, 2019, Abeona issued a press release announcing receipt of a clinical hold letter from the FDA, “clarifying that the FDA will not provide approval for the Company to begin its planned Phase 3 clinical trial for EB-101 [a/k/a, the VITAL Study] until it submits to the FDA additional data points on transport stability of EB-101 to clinical sites” (the “September 2019 Press Release”).  The September 2019 Press Release also disclosed that Abeona had been working with the FDA for at least a year to address issues with the Company’s CMC.

On this news, Abeona’s stock price fell $0.39 per share, or 11.96%, to close at $2.87 per share on September 23, 2019.

The complaint, filed on November 1, 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) Abeona’s Chemical, Manufacturing and Controls (“CMC”) and internal controls and procedures and/or compliance policies were inadequate; (ii) as a result, the Company failed to provide sufficient data points on the transport stability of EB-101 to clinical sites, or else such transport stability was insufficient; (iii) consequently, it was foreseeable that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) would reject approval for the start of the VITAL Study until such issues were addressed; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Abeona class action go to: https://bespc.com/abeo

Azz, Inc. (AZZ)

Class Period: July 3, 2018 to October 8, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 3, 2020

On May 17, 2019, AZZ disclosed a weakness in its internal control over financial reporting related to preparation and review of revenue reconciliations after adopting a new revenue recognition standard.

On May 20, 2019 AZZ announced that it had replaced its independent auditor, BDO US, LLP, with Grant Thornton LLP.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $1.21, nearly 3%, to close at $43.35 per share on May 20, 2019.

On October 8, 2019, AZZ delayed its second quarter 2020 financial results “to allow the Company additional time to complete the review of the Form 10-Q for its fiscal year 2020 second quarter ended August 31, 2019.”

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $5.89, nearly 14%, to close at $37.12 per share on October 8, 2019.

Finally, on October 25, 2019, AZZ announced that its Chief Accounting Officer “will leave the Company effective October 31, 2019.”

The complaint, filed on November 4, 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’s internal controls over financial reporting were not effective; (2) that the Company improperly implemented ASC 606 which resulted in improper revenue reconciliations; and (3) 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 Azz class action go to: https://bespc.com/azz-2

Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA, UAA)

Class Period: August 3, 2016 to November 1, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 6, 2020

On November 3, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported on U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission investigations into Under Armour’s accounting practices and related disclosures. The article, entitled “Under Armour Is Subject of Federal Accounting Probes,” noted that the investigations are concerning whether Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to appear healthier. That same day, the Company confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that it had been cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission since July 2017.

On this news, Class C shares of Under Armour (UA) fell $3.47 per share or 18.35% to close at $15.44 per share and Class A shares of Under Armour (UAA) fell $4.00 per share or 18.92% to close at $17.14 per share on November 4, 2019, damaging investors.

The complaint, filed on November 6, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to appear healthier, including to keep pace with their long-running year-over-year 20% net revenue growth; (2) the Company had been under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since at least July 2017; and (3) 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 Under Armour class action go to: https://bespc.com/underarmour

UP Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR)

Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019 (the “IPO” or “Offering”) and/or purchased between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019 (the “Class Period”).

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 6, 2020

On February 22, 2019, Fintech filed a registration statement on Form F-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which was declared effective by the SEC on March 19, 2019 (the “Registration Statement”). The Registration Statement was filed with respect to the underlying Class A ordinary shares represented by the ADSs to be sold in the IPO.

On March 20, 2019, Fintech filed a prospectus for the IPO  (the “Prospectus”), which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the “Offering Documents”). That same day, Fintech announced the pricing of its IPO of 13 million ADSs, each representing fifteen Class A ordinary shares of the Company, at $8.00 per ADS. The ADSs began trading the same day on the NASDAQ under the symbol “TIGR.” Fintech raised $104 million in proceeds from the IPO.

The complaint, filed on November 6, 2019, alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, in the Offering Documents and during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fintech was experiencing a material decrease in commissions because of a negative trend related to risk averse investors in the market; (ii) Fintech was unable to absorb costs associated with the rapid growth of its business and its status as a publicly listed company on a U.S. exchange; (iii) Fintech was incurring significant additional expenses related to, inter alia, employee headcount and employee compensation and benefits; (iv) all of the foregoing had led to Fintech significantly increasing operating costs and expenses; and (v) 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 Class Period statements were likewise materially false and/or misleading.

On May 17, 2019, during pre-market hours, Fintech issued a press release announcing its unaudited first quarter 2019 financial results—the Company’s first quarterly earnings announcement following the IPO (the “1Q19 Press Release”). In that press release, Fintech disclosed a 4.1% decrease in commissions, noting that “[i]nvestors were relatively risk averse at beginning of this year which leads to moderated trading activities and a slight decrease in trading commission.” The 1Q19 Press Release also disclosed, among other issues, that Fintech’s operating costs and expenses and net loss attributable to the Company had begun to skyrocket as a result of increases in expenses related to employee headcount, employee compensation and benefits, and office space and leasehold improvements, as well as rapid customer growth, expanded market data usage for its customers, and additional professional expenses as a listed company.

Specifically, with respect to Fintech’s drastically increasing operating costs and expenses and net loss attributable to the Company, the 1Q19 Press Release disclosed that total operating costs and expenses for the first quarter of 2019 increased by 36.4% to $14.0 million from $10.3 million in the first quarter of 2018, and that employee compensation and benefits increased by 60.8% from $4.9 million in the first quarter of 2018 to $7.8 million in the first quarter of 2019.

On this news, Fintech’s ADS price fell $1.21 per share, or 17.34%, to close at $5.77 per share on May 17, 2019.

For more information on the UP Fintech class action go to: https://bespc.com/tigr

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.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com