According to the Complaint, FutureFuel Corp., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, FutureFuel Chemical Company, manufactures diversified chemical products, bio-based fuel products, and bio-based specialty chemical products.The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) FutureFuel did not have adequate internal controls; (2) FutureFuel’s financial statements were misstated; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.
Recent Security Class Actions
According to the Complaint, NIKE, Inc. is a global athletic footwear and apparel company which designs, markets, and sells products for its NIKE, Jordan, and Converse brands. The Complaint 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 and operations. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) NIKE’s direct-to-consumer strategy was unable to generate sustainable revenue growth; (2) NIKE’s purported competitive advantages were unable to protect the Company from intense competitive pressures after NIKE largely disengaged from many of its wholesale and retail partners to focus on the Company’s direct-to-consumer strategy; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ representations about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.On August 8, 2024, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. All future docketing was ordered to be done in the lead case 24-CV-00974.
According to the Complaint, UiPath, Inc. provides business automation software, specifically a set of RPA and AI capabilities that allow its customers to discover and develop opportunities for automation and automate tasks using a digital workforce that seamlessly collaborates with humans. On September 27, 2022, after a period of stagnant growth and declining demand for its RPA products, UiPath announced a turnaround strategy. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the success of UiPath's turnaround strategy.On May 29, 2024, UiPath announced the sudden departure of its CEO. On the same day, UiPath announced disappointing 1Q 25 financial results and significantly cut its FY 25 revenue guidance by 10%, or $150 million. The Company attributed the poor results and guidance to several factors related to its failed turnaround strategy.The Complaint alleges that as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their respective purchases of the Company’s securities during the Class Period.
The claim arises on March 21, 2024, NIKE announced its third quarter fiscal year 2024 financial results after market close.
The complaint 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 and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) NIKE's direct-to-consumer strategy was unable to generate sustainable revenue growth; (2) NIKE's purported competitive advantages were unable to protect the Company from intense competitive pressures after NIKE largely disengaged from many of its wholesale and retail partners to focus on the Company's direct-to-consumer strategy; and (3) as a result, Defendants' representations about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result, the price of NIKE Class B common stock declined $6.96 per share, or nearly 7%, from a close of $100.82 per share on March 21, 2024, to close at $93.86 per share on March 22, 2024.
According to the Complaint, Teradata Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides a connected multicloud data platform for enterprise analytics. Historically, Teradata primarily dealt with the IT departments of its customers. However, as the Company expanded its business model and strategic objectives, it increasingly began to engage with additional customer business units.The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) under Teradata's expanded business model, which involved engagement with additional customer business units and decision makers, transactions with the Company's customers took longer to finalize; (ii) Teradata thus overstated its ability to close customer transactions within their intended timeframes under its expanded business model; (iii) Terada failed to timely close several customer transactions that it had factored into its outlook for 2023 Total Annual Recurring Revenue ("ARR") growth; (iv) as a result, the Company was unlikely to meet its full year 2023 Total and Public Cloud ARR expectations; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
According to the Complaint, 2U is an online education platform company which operates through two segments, the Degree Program and the Alternative Credentials segment. The Degree Program delivers content, in partnership with established colleges and universities to students seeking online undergraduate or graduate degree. The Alternative Credential segment offers online open courses, boot camps, and micro-credential programs, also in partnership with colleges and universities, for shorter duration and lower-priced non-degree offerings. The Company's longest running flagship programs were run through the University of Southern California ("USC"). Programs with USC represented 15% and 21% of the Company's consolidated revenue respectively for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018.
The Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company was unable to sustain relationships with key universities and organizations; (2) as a result, certain degree programs and partnerships failed to materialize or were canceled; (3) the Company's transition to a platform company would lead to a decrease in full course equivalent enrollments; (4) accordingly, the Company had overstated the stability and/or longevity of its contractual agreements and/or revenue sources; 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.
According to the Complaint, Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is a food processing company and one of the world's largest producers of frozen potato products. In July 2023, Lamb Weston announced that it had completed the design phase of its new ERP software system that would manage and integrate the most important parts of the Company's business. The new system was critical to Lamb Weston's operations, as it was designed to manage supplier payments, inventories, warehousing, customer invoicing, and order shipments.
The Complaint alleges Defendants knew of, or recklessly disregarded, problems associated with the ERP system that would hinder its successful implementation, and that despite those issues, Lamb Weston pushed ahead with its implementation of an ERP system that was not ready to go live, knowing that a premature roll-out would have a material negative impact on the Company's business and operations. As a result, the Complaint alleges, the statements concerning its business, operations, and prospects, including its financial guidance for fiscal 2024, lacked a reasonable factual basis. In addition, to the extent the Company purported to warn of risks regarding the negative impacts from an unsuccessful implementation of the ERP system, Defendants omitted that such risks had already begun to materialize.
According to the Complaint, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company produces various lawn, garden, and agricultural products for both consumer and professional purposes. It is also the world’s largest marketer of branded consumer products for lawn and garden care. Its main brands are Scotts, Miracle-Gro, and Ortho.The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made numerous materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's inventory levels, debt covenant compliance, and financial performance and that as a result of these misrepresentations, Scotts common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is a vehicle rental company that offers both ICE vehicle and EV rental services from Company-operated, licensee, and franchisee locations across various countries. The Company also sells vehicles and value-added services.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Hertz had downplayed the financial impact of vehicle depreciation, and/or overstated its ability to track and manage vehicle depreciation; (ii) demand for Hertz's EVs was not as strong as Defendants had led investors to believe; (iii) Hertz had too many vehicles, particularly EVs, in its fleet to remain profitable; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, Hertz was likely to incur significant losses on the disposition of both its ICE vehicles and EVs; (v) all the foregoing was likely to, and did, have a significant negative impact on Hertz's financial results; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
According to the Complaint, Fastly, Inc. operates an edge cloud platform for processing, serving, and securing its customer's applications in the U.S., the Asia Pacific, Europe, and internationally. Fastly's platform includes a Content Delivery Network ("CDN"), or a geographically distributed network of proxy servers and their data centers.
In 2023, a "consolidation trend" emerged in the CDN industry, in which several prominent Multi-CDN companies reduced the number of CDN vendors they had previously managed in an effort to simplify their operations and increase efficiency, opting instead to manage fewer CDN vendors. Facing reduced competition, Fastly was able to materially increase its market share and drive favorable sequential growth
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) contrary to its representations to investors, Fastly was in fact experiencing a significant deceleration in growth among its largest customers and was losing the increased market share it had gained as a result of the 2023 CDN consolidation trend; (ii) the foregoing issues were likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's revenue growth; (iii) accordingly, the Company was unlikely to meet its own previously issued revenue guidance for FY 2024; (iv) as a result, the Company's financial position and/or prospects were overstated; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
