U.S. Markets closed

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against ADTRAN, Domo, Pareteum, and Infosys and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, Nov. 13, 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), Pareteum Corporation (TEUM), and Infosys Limited (INFY). 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

Pareteum Corporation (TEUM)

Class Period: December 14, 2017 to October 21, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2019

On December 14, 2017, the Company provided an update to shareholders, highlighting that its "restructuring and repositioning in 2016 has led to solid growth in 2017, and has defined [the Company’s] innovation in both services and market positioning, establishing a strong outlook for our success in 2018 and beyond."

On June 7, 2019, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report questioning the propriety of Pareteum’s accounting and statements about its backlog, backlog conversion rates, and receivables.  The report concluded, “[w]e see massive downside potential and believe the stock is completely uninvestible.”  

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.83, or over 24%, to close at $2.58 per share on June 7, 2019,

Next, on June 25, 2019, Viceroy Research Group published a report identifying several sources of “uncollectable” revenue presented in Pareteum’s financial results, concluding that "total revenue is overstated by 42%."

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.51, or over 20%, to close at $2.00 per share on June 26, 2019.

On October 15, 2019, the Company announced the termination of Pareteum’s Chief Operating Officer Denis McCarthy, who reportedly played a central role in disseminating the Company's 36-Month-Contract-Backlog, the metric under intense scrutiny.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.36, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $0.83 per share on October 17, 2019,

On October 21, 2019, the Company disclosed that certain revenues recognized during 2018 and 2019 should not have been recorded during that period and that, as a result, the Company would restate their previously issued consolidated financial statements as of and for the full year ended December 31, 2018, and interim periods ended March 31, 2019 and June 30, 2019.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.4401, or nearly 60%, to close at $0.2992 on October 22, 2019.

For more information on the Pareteum class action go to: https://bespc.com/teum

Infosys Limited (INFY)

Class Period: July 17, 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

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