Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Stride, JOYY, Berry Corporation, and Pinterest and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
- Nasdaq ends at record high as Big Tech roars back
- Sanderson Farms (SAFM) Explores Sale - Report
- Bitcoin (BTC) Cracks $30,000 to Hit 6-Month Low, Here Are Next Targets Lower
- Dollar lower as Powell reaffirms pledge to not raise rates too quickly
- Splunk (SPLK) Lands $1 Billion From Silver Lake, Announces Buyback One Day After Activist Rumors Surface
News and research before you hear about it on CNBC and others. Claim your 1-week free trial to StreetInsider Premium here.
NEW YORK, Jan. 06, 2021 (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 Stride, Inc. (NYSE: LRN) (f/k/a K12, Inc.), JOYY, Inc. (NASDAQ: YY), Berry Corporation (NASDAQ: BRY), and Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS). 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.
Stride, Inc. (NYSE: LRN) (f/k/a K12, Inc.)
Class Period: April 27, 2020 to September 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021
Stride is a technology-based education company that provides proprietary and third-party educational curriculum, teacher training, administrative support, information technology support, software systems and educational services. The Company operates virtual learning systems worldwide.
Contrary to the facts asserted by Stride, reports began to surface that Stride’s training for teachers in Miami-Dade County—one of the nation’s largest school districts—had been woefully inadequate.
On this news, the price of Stride common shares sharply fell by 7% over the course of two trading days, to close at $37.70 on August 27, 2020.
Once classes began on August 31, 2020, the situation worsened. Stride experienced major technical issues and disruptions with teachers and students of Miami-Dade County being unable to even log into the platform and utilize its contents, which prompted local officials to publicly scold Stride for being “not ready” for the opening of the school year. In response to the overwhelming amount of complaints by outraged parents, MiamiDade County School District called a Board meeting to discuss Stride’s many failures. During the meeting, Miami-Dade County Public Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvalho revealed that he never signed the $15.3 million no-bid contract with Stride and the school district had never paid Stride for the provision of its services and products.
On this news, the price of Stride common shares fell 10.5% over the course of two trading days, to close at $34.89 on September 3, 2020.
A week later, after another Board meeting that lasted for over 13 hours and included 400 speakers, the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Board voted to terminate their $15.3 million contract with Stride on September 10, 2020.
On this news, the price of Stride common shares again fell drastically, by 11.5%, to close at $30.55 on September 10, 2020.
Meanwhile, the Beaufort County School District in South Carolina engaged Stride to provide virtual learning programs for their students. However, the introduction of the program had to be delayed until the second week of instruction. Soon after, Beaufort County School District board member John Dowling stated that he had lost confidence in Stride’s ability to provide educational solutions for the district and moved to terminate the contract, which happened two days later.
On this news, the price of Stride common shares fell 4.9%, to close at $27.21 on September 18, 2020.
The complaint, filed on November 19, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Stride lacked the technological capabilities, infrastructures, and expertise to support the increased demand for virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic; (ii) Stride lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to prevent the disabling of its computer system; (iii) Stride was unable provide the necessary levels of administrative support and training to teachers, students, and parents; and (iv) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted facts.
For more information on the Stride class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LRN
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
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.
Serious News for Serious Traders! Try StreetInsider.com Premium Free!
You May Also Be Interested In
- Focus Financial Partners Inc. (FOCS) Launches Secondary Offering of 7.4M Shares
- UDR, Inc. (UDR) Prices Public Offering of 6.1M Shares of Common Stock at $49.38
- AptarGroup (ATR) Announces Exclusive Negotiations Regarding a Potential Acquisition of Voluntis to Expand in Digital Therapeutics
Create E-mail Alert Related CategoriesGlobe Newswire, Press Releases
Related EntitiesEarnings, Muddy Waters LLC, Definitive Agreement, IPO
Sign up for StreetInsider Free!
Receive full access to all new and archived articles, unlimited portfolio tracking, e-mail alerts, custom newswires and RSS feeds - and more!