Loading, Please Wait...
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 Sealed Air Corporation (NYSE: SEE), Abeona Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ABEO), AZZ, Inc. (NYSE: AZZ), and Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA, UAA). 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.
Sealed Air Corporation (NYSE: SEE)
Class Period: November 5, 2014 to August 6, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 2, 2020
On November 5, 2014 Sealed Air filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2014, which was signed by defendant Stiehl and contained signed certifications by defendants Peribere and Lowe stating that the statements contained therein were accurate and not materially misleading. The Form 10-Q stated that Sealed Air had achieved $59.3 million in net earnings for the quarter.
In subsequent quarterly earnings releases and Forms 10-Q and 10-K, Sealed Air continued to represent that its deductions and accounting treatment of the Settlement were proper and that the Company’s financial results, which had been certified by the Individual defendants, had been fairly and accurately represented in these financial filings in all material respects. In addition, in each Sealed Air Form 10-Q and Form 10-K filed during the Class Period, defendants claimed that the financial statements contained therein were prepared in conformance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”). Sealed Air also continued to cite E&Y’s purported “independence” in recommending that shareholders vote to approve the auditing firm, which shareholders did in every year from 2015 to 2019.
On August 6, 2018, Sealed Air filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2018, which revealed that the Company had received a subpoena from the SEC requesting documents and information concerning the Company’s accounting for income taxes and financial reporting and disclosures. Analysts widely viewed the SEC investigation as relating to the Company’s tax treatment of the Settlement. The SEC investigation severely undermined the Company’s purported defense to the IRS disallowance proceedings.
On this news, the price of Sealed Air stock immediately fell over 5% to close at $41 per share on August 7, 2018. In the days that followed, the price of Sealed Air common stock continued to decline, falling to just over $30 per share by October 2018.
The complaint, filed on November 1, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of Sealed Air common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Sealed Air common stock. When the truth about Sealed Air’s misconduct was revealed over time, the value of the Company’s stock declined precipitously as the prior artificial inflation no longer propped up the stock’s price. The decline in the price of Sealed Air stock was the direct result of the nature and extent of defendants’ fraud finally being revealed to investors and the market. The timing and magnitude of the share price decline negate any inference that the losses suffered by plaintiff and other members of the Class were caused by changed market conditions, macroeconomic or industry factors, or Company-specific facts unrelated to the defendants’ fraudulent conduct. The economic loss, i.e., damages, suffered by plaintiff and other Class members was a direct result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of the Company’s stock and the subsequent significant decline in the value of the Company’s stock when defendants’ prior misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct were revealed.
For more information on the Sealed Air class action go to: https://bespc.com/see
Abeona Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ABEO)
Class Period: May 31, 2018 to September 23, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 2, 2019
EB-101 for the treatment of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (“RDEB”) is one of Abeona’s lead programs. From preliminary clinical data and expert input, the Company expected EB-101 to be a potential treatment choice for most wounds, and believes it is currently the only product candidate being evaluated as a treatment for larger wounds.
Results from a completed Phase I/II study that enrolled seven patients with chronic RDEB wounds at Stanford University purportedly showed that EB-101 was well-tolerated and resulted in significant and durable wound healing.
Abeona expected to initiate a pivotal clinical trial evaluating the potential of EB-101 for the treatment of RDEB in the middle of 2019. The so-called VITAL Study would be a multicenter, randomized, Phase III clinical trial assessing ten to fifteen patients treated with EB-101.
On September 23, 2019, Abeona issued a press release announcing receipt of a clinical hold letter from the FDA, “clarifying that the FDA will not provide approval for the Company to begin its planned Phase 3 clinical trial for EB-101 [a/k/a, the VITAL Study] until it submits to the FDA additional data points on transport stability of EB-101 to clinical sites” (the “September 2019 Press Release”). The September 2019 Press Release also disclosed that Abeona had been working with the FDA for at least a year to address issues with the Company’s CMC.
On this news, Abeona’s stock price fell $0.39 per share, or 11.96%, to close at $2.87 per share on September 23, 2019.
The complaint, filed on November 1, 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) Abeona’s Chemical, Manufacturing and Controls (“CMC”) and internal controls and procedures and/or compliance policies were inadequate; (ii) as a result, the Company failed to provide sufficient data points on the transport stability of EB-101 to clinical sites, or else such transport stability was insufficient; (iii) consequently, it was foreseeable that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) would reject approval for the start of the VITAL Study until such issues were addressed; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Abeona class action go to: https://bespc.com/abeo
Azz, Inc. (NYSE: AZZ)
Class Period: July 3, 2018 to October 8, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 3, 2020
On May 17, 2019, AZZ disclosed a weakness in its internal control over financial reporting related to preparation and review of revenue reconciliations after adopting a new revenue recognition standard.
On May 20, 2019 AZZ announced that it had replaced its independent auditor, BDO US, LLP, with Grant Thornton LLP.
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $1.21, nearly 3%, to close at $43.35 per share on May 20, 2019.
On October 8, 2019, AZZ delayed its second quarter 2020 financial results “to allow the Company additional time to complete the review of the Form 10-Q for its fiscal year 2020 second quarter ended August 31, 2019.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $5.89, nearly 14%, to close at $37.12 per share on October 8, 2019.
Finally, on October 25, 2019, AZZ announced that its Chief Accounting Officer “will leave the Company effective October 31, 2019.”
The complaint, filed on November 4, 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: (1) that the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were not effective; (2) that the Company improperly implemented ASC 606 which resulted in improper revenue reconciliations; and (3) 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.
For more information on the Azz class action go to: https://bespc.com/azz
Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA, UAA)
Class Period: August 3, 2016 to November 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 6, 2020
On November 3, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported on U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission investigations into Under Armour’s accounting practices and related disclosures. The article, entitled “Under Armour Is Subject of Federal Accounting Probes,” noted that the investigations are concerning whether Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to appear healthier. That same day, the Company confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that it had been cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission since July 2017.
On this news, Class C shares of Under Armour (UA) fell $3.47 per share or 18.35% to close at $15.44 per share and Class A shares of Under Armour (UAA) fell $4.00 per share or 18.92% to close at $17.14 per share on November 4, 2019, damaging investors.
The complaint, filed on November 6, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to appear healthier, including to keep pace with their long-running year-over-year 20% net revenue growth; (2) the Company had been under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since at least July 2017; 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 relevant times.
For more information on the Under Armour class action go to: https://bespc.com/underarmour
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.