U.S. Markets open in 6 hrs 22 mins

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Match Group, Dropbox, Ruhnn Holding, and Sonim Technologies and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, Nov. 20, 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 Match Group, Inc. (MTCH), Dropbox, Inc. (DBX), Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN), and Sonim Technologies, Inc. (SONM). 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.

Match Group, Inc. (MTCH)

Class Period: August 6, 2019 to September 25, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019

On September 25, 2019, The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it had sued Match.com for, among other things, using artificial love interest ads to deceive consumers into buying or upgrading subscriptions, failing to resolve disputed charges, and intentionally making it difficult to cancel subscriptions.

On this news, the company’s share price fell $1.39 per share, or nearly 2%, to close at $71.44 per share on September 25, 2019.

The complaint, filed October 3, 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 used fake love interest ads to convince customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions; (2) that the company made it difficult and confusing for consumers to cancel their subscriptions; (3) that, as a result, the company was reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (4) that the company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (5) that, as a result, defendants positive statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Match Group class action go to: https://bespc.com/mtch

Dropbox, Inc. (DBX)

Class Period: Class A common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s March 23, 2018 initial public offering (“IPO”).

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 3, 2019

On February 23, 2018, Dropbox filed a registration statement for its IPO which, after several amendments, was declared effective on March 22, 2018 (the “Registration Statement”).  On March 23, 2018, Dropbox filed the prospectus for the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement.  By way of the Registration Statement, defendants offered and sold 41.4 million Class A shares at $21 per share. In addition, the Company conducted a private offering of Class A stock concurrently with the IPO in which it sold over 4.7 million shares to an institutional investor for an additional $100 million in gross proceeds.  Numerous Company insiders, including certain of the Individual Defendants, also sold stock in the IPO, making more than $184 million after applicable underwriting discounts.  Underwriters received more than $38.6 million in underwriting discounts and fees from the IPO proceeds, and several, including lead underwriters Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, received tens of millions of dollars more as a result of payments by Dropbox towards a revolving credit facility maintained by these investment banks.

The complaint, filed on November 4, 2019, alleges that the Registration Statement was 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 was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation.  Specifically, the Registration Statement claimed that a significant proportion of the Company’s registered user base was primed for monetization.  It claimed that 300 million of the Company’s 500 million registered users had unique characteristics making them likely to be monetized over time, purportedly presenting a “significant opportunity to increase [the Company’s] revenues.” 

The Registration Statement also described Dropbox’s business model as involving the “[i]ncrease conversion of registered users to [the Company’s] paid subscription plans.”  It highlighted the Company’s increase of paid users from 6.5 million users in 2015 to 11 million users by 2017, representing 69% growth over two years.

In connection with its second quarter 2019 earnings report, Dropbox still claimed to have “more than 500 million registered users” as of June 2019, indicating that the Company had experienced essentially no significant registered user growth since December 31, 2017 — months prior to the IPO.  The Company had only converted an additional 2.6 million paid users in the year-and-a-half since the IPO, representing an annualized post-IPO growth rate of only 15% and less than 1% of the “300 million” figure provided in the Registration Statement.  Similarly, the Company’s revenue growth rate had dramatically decelerated to only 18% for 2019, a sharp decline from the 40% and 31% annual growth rates highlighted in the Registration Statement.

On August 27, 2019, Dropbox stock closed at $17.53 per share, representing a decline of more than 16% from the IPO price. 

For more information on the Dropbox class action go to: https://bespc.com/dbx

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)

Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with Ruhnn’s April 3, 2019 initial public stock offering (the “IPO” or the “Offering”).

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 6, 2019

The complaint, filed on September 8, 2019, alleges that the Registration Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn’s online stores had declined by nearly 40%; (2) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn’s full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly 44%; (3) as a result, the Company’s net revenues derived from its full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about Ruhnn’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Ruhnn’s stock is currently trading at $6.59 per share, an over 47% decrease from its $12.50 IPO price.

For more information on the Ruhnn class action go to: https://bespc.com/ruhn

Sonim Technologies, Inc. (SONM)

Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with Sonim’s May 2019 initial public stock offering (the “IPO” or the “Offering”).

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 6, 2019

In May 2019, Sonim completed its initial public offering (“IPO”) in which it sold approximately 4.07 million shares at a price of $11.00 per share.

On September 10, 2019, Sonim disclosed that it expected fiscal 2019 net revenues to be flat or slightly below 2018 net revenues of $135.7 million, citing “significant delays” in the launch of new products as well as software issues related to these new introductions. Moreover, the Company disclosed that its CFO James Walker was resigning.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.30, or nearly 47%, to close at $3.76 per share on September 10, 2019.

Currently, Sonim stock is trading at $2.87 per share, a 73% decline from the $11 per share IPO price.

The complaint, filed on October 7, 2019, alleges that 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 XP8 was experiencing material software challenges; (2) that these software issues adversely affected how the device’s Qualcomm chipset, which supported Band 14 access, connected to AT&T’s carrier network configuration; (3) that the Company’s XP5 and XP3 devices were experiencing material software defects that adversely affected their optimization with certain accessories; (4) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to delay the launch of new products; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial results would be materially and adversely impacted; and (6) 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 Sonim class action go to: https://bespc.com/sonm 

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