According to the law firm press release, the Complaint 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) Defendant had engaged in illegal conduct in connection with the Bezeq-YES Merger; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject B Communications and/or Bezeq to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, B Communications' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Recent Security Class Actions
According to the law firm press release, Axiom Holdings, Inc. is an independent power producer and real estate developer that develops, builds, owns & operates power generation plants and hotels. Axiom continues to leverage its global partnerships with real estate owners and hydropower developers and expand its asset portfolio through acquisition and development of identified pipeline.
The Complaint alleges as follows: On June 16, 2017, Bloomberg reported that a former CenturyLink employee claimed she was fired for blowing the whistle on the Company's high-pressure sales culture that allegedly left customers paying millions of dollars for accounts they didn't request. Bloomberg further reported that the complaint alleged that the Company allowed persons who had a personal incentive to add services or lines to customer accounts to falsely indicate on the CenturyLink system the approval by a customer of new lines or services. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.23 per share, or nearly 5%, to close at $25.72 per share on June 16, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume.
According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, FleetCor misled investors with regard to the sources of and reasons for its earnings and growth. The Complaint also alleges that FleetCor falsely stated that the Company discloses its fees to customers clearly and that it focuses its business on helping employers control spending and save money. In truth, the Company owes its ostensible success to overcharging customers, disseminating misleading marketing materials, and engaging in predatory sales practices. In addition, FleetCor's contracts did not clearly disclose the Company's fees and FleetCor's improper business practices did not help customers control spending or save money.
According to the law firm press release, Snap Inc. is a camera company that provides technology and social media services. The Company develops mobile camera application products and services that allow users to send and receive photos, drawings, text, and videos. Snap serves customers worldwide.
According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Synchronoss would not be able to meet revenue guidance provided to investors; (2) as such, Synchronoss would need to revise its prior guidance; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Synchronoss's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a large customer of BioAmber that was expected to purchase $2.8 million of succinic acid in Q4 2016 experienced a technical problem in its manufacturing facility and postponed the order to 2017; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about BioAmber's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated its revenue by 355% or roughly $3.3 billion by reporting fictitious sales of more than 100,000 homes; (2) between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated the number of units it sold by over 100,000 units or 317% of actual units sold; (3) Homex and certain of its Headquarters Financial Reporting Personnel knowingly and intentionally engaged in a scheme to materially overstate Homex's revenues, homes sold, and other related financial items; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Homex's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Defendant had donated funds through nonprofit organizations to the University of Utah for the purpose of funneling those funds back into NantHealth; (2) that, as such, the Company and Defendant participated in the violation of federal tax laws—exposing the Company to possible civil and criminal liability; (3) that the Company improperly recorded orders received from the University of Utah as GPS Cancer test orders; (4) that, as a result, the Company reported false and inflated GPS Cancer order figures for the third quarter of 2016; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and Defendants' statements about NantHealth's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading.
According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Graña y Montero was aware that its Brazilian partner Odebrecht S.A. paid bribes to former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo to win construction work on a road traveling from Peru to Brazil; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Graña y Montero's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On February 24, 2017, Reuters published an article highlighting a report that Graña y Montero knew about $20 million in bribes paid to former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo by its partner Odebrecht. On this news, shares of Graña y Montero fell $1.77 per share or over 34% to close $3.32 per share on February 24, 2017.
