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 The Chemours Company (CC), Third Coast Midstream f/k/a American Midstream Partners, LP, Vivint Solar, Inc. (VSLR), and ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN) . 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.
The Chemours Company (CC)
Class Period: February 16, 2017 to August 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 9, 2019
Chemours is a spin-off of the Performance Chemicals division of industrial conglomerate E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont"). Chemours began trading as its own public company in 2015. The spin-off was completed pursuant to a Separation Agreement that required Chemours to protect DuPont for historic environmental liabilities. The action arises from Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions relating to Chemours' statements and accruals for environmental liabilities arising from its decades-long production, use, and discharge of chemicals manufactured by the Performance Chemicals division, including perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS")—toxic chemicals that have become the basis for environmental regulatory actions, prosecutions, personal injury lawsuits, and extensive remediation efforts.
The complaint, filed on October 8, 2019, alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants misled investors by representing that Chemours had appropriately accounted and accrued reserves for its environmental liabilities, that the possibility of costs exceeding accrued amounts was "remote," and that, in any event, additional costs would not be material. Chemours also assured investors that its "policies, standards and procedures are properly designed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm to people and the environment," and that its "handling, manufacture, use and disposal of hazardous substances are in accordance with applicable environmental laws and regulations." As a result of these misrepresentations, Chemours shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.
A series of disclosures beginning on May 6, 2019, culminating on August 1, 2019 when the Company revealed the truth about its environmental practices, and that Chemours’ liabilities were far greater than the Company had represented. These disclosures included the June 28, 2019 unsealing of a complaint Chemours had filed under seal against DuPont on May 13, 2019, in which Chemours made detailed allegations that its spin-off from DuPont was part a deliberate plan by DuPont to rid itself of significant exposures incurred through decades of PFAS discharge and to unload that responsibility onto Chemours. These disclosures triggered sharp declines in the price of Chemours stock. Chemours shares price fell from $34.18 per share on May 3, 2019 to close at $14.69 per share on August 2, 2019.
For more information on the Chemours class action got to: https://bespc.com/cc
Third Coast Midstream f/k/a American Midstream Partners, LP
Class Period: All former owners of American Midstream stock who sold their stock, and were damaged thereby
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 9, 2019
American Midstream is a growth-oriented master limited partnership formed to own, operate, develop, and acquire a diversified portfolio of midstream energy assets. At all relevant times, American Midstream’s general partner was American Midstream GP, LLC (the “General Partner”). The General Partner was solely responsible for supporting and conducting the business operations of American Midstream.
The complaint, filed on October 10, 2019, alleges that ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC (“ArcLight”) was the Company’s majority stockholder and had control over the General Partner. Therefore, ArcLight ensured that the majority of American Midstream’s Board of Directors were all affiliated with ArcLight, and had the ability to control the Company’s quarterly distribution.
On July 27, 2018, American Midstream declared a 75 percent reduction in the Company’s quarterly common stock distribution. As a result of this reduction, American Midstream’s stock price declined over 42 percent, falling precipitously from $11.55 to $6.60 on July 27, 2018.
Then, on December 31, 2018, American Midstream reported that because of an amendment to its credit facility agreement, it did not expect to make any distributions to its stock holders in the upcoming fourth quarter of 2018, and would continue to withhold said distributions until its consolidated total leverage ratio was reduced. On this news, American Midstream’s stock declined $1.30, or 30 percent, closing at a price of $3.03 per share on December 31, 2018.
On March 18, 2019, American Midstream publicly disclosed it had entered into a merger agreement with a subsidiary of ArcLight pursuant to which American Midstream stockholders would receive $4.50 per share. On July 23, 2019, American Midstream announced the closing of the merger.
Therefore, as a result of the distribution cuts put in place by virtue of ArcLight’s control over the Company, American Midstream minority stockholders received approximately 60 percent less consideration for their shares than the common stock price immediately prior to the distribution cut on July 27, 2018.
For more information on the American Midstream class action go to: https://bespc.com/americanmidstream
Vivint Solar, Inc. (VSLR)
Class Period: March 5, 2019 and September 26, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 10, 2019
On September 27, 2019, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report alleging that “28 undisclosed lawsuits . . . specifically allege Vivint forged customer contracts or otherwise engaged in fraud or deception.”
On this news, the company’s share price fell $0.14 per share, or over 2%, to close at $6.55 per share on September 27, 2019.
The complaint, filed on October 11, 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 engaged in fraudulent practices, including forging customer contracts; (2) that, as a result, the company’s reported sales and megawatts installed were overstated; (3) that these practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny: (4) that, as a result, the company’s earnings would be materially and 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.
To learn more about the Vivint class action go to: https://bespc.com/vslr
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
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.