Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against JOYY, Berry Corporation, Pinterest, and Northern Dynasty Minerals and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
NEW YORK, Dec. 29, 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 JOYY, Inc. (NASDAQ: YY), Berry Corporation (NASDAQ: BRY), Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS), and Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK). 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.
JOYY, Inc. (NASDAQ: YY)
Class Period: April 28, 2016 to November 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021
On November 18, 2020, while the market was open, Muddy Waters Research published a report alleging that JOYY, among other things, had: (i) reported fraudulent revenue; (ii) component businesses that were a fraction of the size that it reports; and (iii) acquired BIGO as part of a scam that benefitted corporate insiders.
On this news, JOYY’s ADRs fell $26.53 per share, or 26.4%, to close at $73.66 per share on November 18, 2020.
The complaint, filed on November 20, 2020, alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were bots; (2) the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the Company overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company’s acquisition of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and (5) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the JOYY class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/YY
Berry Corporation (NASDAQ: BRY)
Class Period: (a) Common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018 (the “IPO” or “Offering”); or (b) Berry securities purchased between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 (the “Class Period”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 21, 2021
On June 29, 2018, the Company filed its Registration Statement on Form S-l for the IPO, which, after an amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on July 25, 2018 (the “Registration Statement”). On or around July 26, 2018, Berry conducted the IPO, upon which the Company began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select market (“NASDAQ”), issuing 13 million shares of Berry common stock at $14 per share, generating over $138 million in proceeds before expenses. On July 27, 2018 Berry filed its Prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC (the “Prospectus” and, collectively with the Registration Statement, the “Offering Documents”).
On November 3, 2020, Berry reported its financial and operating results for the third quarter of 2020. Among other results, Berry reported non-GAAP EPS and revenue that both fell short of estimates. In addition, Berry reported that during the quarter, “the Company undertook certain operational improvements that caused temporary reductions in our production. Notably, we performed some plugging and abandonment activity that resulted in the temporary shut-in of nearby wells. Additionally, improved steam management reduced overall costs but temporarily increased water disposal and well maintenance needs, resulting in a slight decrease in production.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.15 per share, or 5.28%, to close at $2.69 per share on November 4, 2020, representing an 80.78% decline from the IPO price.
The complaint, filed on November 20, 2020, alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required under 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, the Offering Documents and defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Berry had materially overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry’s operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the Company’s productivity and increase costs; (iii) the foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company’s public statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
For more information on the Berry Corporation class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/BRY
Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS)
Class Period: May 16, 2019 to November 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 22, 2021
On October 31, 2019, the Company announced its financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2019. The Company reported disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in the U.S. MAUs year over year, reaching 87 million, only 8 million more than the same period of the previous year. Pinterest also missed its consensus projections and reported lower than expected U.S. advertising revenue. The Company only marginally increased its full year 2019 guidance, implying further deceleration in the future quarters.
On this news, the price of the Company’s shares steeply declined by 17%, to close at $20.86 on November 1, 2019.
The Complaint, filed on November 23, 2020, alleges that Pinterest made false and misleading statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company’s addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its maximum capacity; (ii) which significantly decelerated Pinterest’s future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; (iii) Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing advertising revenue; (iv) and as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.
For more information on the Pinterest class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/PINS
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK)
Class Period: December 21, 2017 to November 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021
Northern Dynasty engages in the exploration of mineral properties in the United States. Its principal mineral property is the Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum project comprising 2,402 mineral claims that covers an area of approximately 417 square miles located in southwest Alaska (the “Pebble Project”).
On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Army released a statement concerning the Pebble Project, stating that it would result in “significant degradation of the environment and would likely result in significant adverse effects on the aquatic system or human environment.” The U.S. Army further found that “the project, as currently proposed, cannot be permitted under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.” The U.S. Army requested that the Company submit a mitigation plan in response to this finding
On this news, Northern Dynasty’s stock price fell $0.55 per share, or 37.9%, to close at $0.90 per share on August 24, 2020.
On November 25, 2020, Northern Dynasty reported that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had rejected its permit applications related to the Pebble Project.
On this news, Northern Dynasty’s stock price fell $0.40 per share, or 50%, to close at $0.40 per share on November 25, 2020.
The complaint, filed on December 4, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company’s permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Northern Dynasty class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/NAK
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.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
