Loading, Please Wait...

CST: 19/09/2019 22:13:07   

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Nektar Therapeutics, Valaris, Burford, and Canada Goose and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

9 Days ago

NEW YORK, Sept. 10, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR), Valaris Plc (NYSE: VAL), Burford Capital Limited (Other OTC: BRFRF), and Canada Goose Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: GOOS). 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.

Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR)

Class Period: February 15, 2019 to August 8, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2019

On August 8, 2019, the company revealed that a manufacturing issue caused two batches of bempegaldesleukin to differ from the other twenty batches that were produced. Furthermore, these batches resulted in variable clinical benefit with respect to the other batches used in the Company’s PIVOT-02 clinical trial.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $8.65, or nearly 30%, to close at $20.92 per share on August 9, 2019.

The complaint, filed on August 19, 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 did not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, batches of NKTR-214 were not produced consistently and differed meaningfully; (3) that clinical results from PIVOT-02 differed based on the batch of NKTR-214 used in the study; (4) that, as a result, the PIVOT-02 study did not produce statistically significant results to support a finding of clinical benefit; 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.

To learn more about the Nektar class action go to: https://bespc.com/nktr-2

Valaris Plc (NYSE: VAL)

Class Period: April 11, 2019 to July 31, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 21, 2019

On July 31, 2019, Valaris issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2019 financial results—its first earnings report post-merger reflecting the results of the combined company—which missed market expectations (the “2Q 2019 Press Release”).  Upon issuance of the 2Q 2019 Press Release, Seeking Alpha published an article on August 2, 2019, entitled “Valaris PLC - Off To A Bad Start” (the “Seeking Alpha Article”), noting that Valaris’s results “shock[ed] investors with massive cash usage [and] . . . surprisingly weak outlook for the ultra-deep water segment with further dayrate recovery likely delayed until at least the second half of next year.”  The Seeking Alpha Article further criticized the company’s free cash flow for the quarter, which was “negative by a whopping $375 million causing the company’s remaining pro forma cash balance adjusted for roughly $741 million in payments related to the recent debt tender offer to decline to just $353 million.”

On this news, Valaris’s stock price fell $3.25 per share, or approximately 39%, to close at $5.02 per share on August 2, 2019.

The complaint, filed on August 20, 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:  (i) the Company was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater segment, massive cash usage, and significant negative cash flow; (ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company’s second quarter 2019 results; (iii) the merger leading to Valaris’s establishment could not deliver on its touted benefits; and (iv) as a result, the company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more about the Valaris class action go to: https://bespc.com/val

Burford Capital Limited (Other OTC: BRFRF)

Class Period: March 18, 2015 to August 7, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 21, 2019

On August 6, 2019, Muddy Water Research sent out a tweet announcing that it was going to be issuing a report regarding an “accounting fiasco.” On this news, shares of Burford fell $2.87, or 17.11%, to close at $13.90 per share on August 6, 2019, damaging investors.

On August 7, 2019, Muddy Waters Research issued its report disclosing, among other things, that Burford had poor governance, was mismarking the value of its legal cases in which it invests, and was manipulating its metrics including ROIC and IRR. On this news, Burford’s ordinary shares plummeted $5.90, or 42.45%, to close at $8.00 on August 7, 2019 and Burford’s ADRs fell $6.15, or 43.93%, further damaging investors.

The complaint, filed on August 21, 2019, alleges that throughout the class period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Burford has been manipulating its metrics, including ROIC and IRR, to create a misleading picture of investment returns to investors; (2) these manipulations hid the fact that the Company is at high risk for a liquidity crunch and is already arguably insolvent; and (3) as a result of the aforementioned misconduct, Defendants’ statements about Burford’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or 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.

To learn more about the Burford class action go to: https://bespc.com/brfrf

Canada Goose Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: GOOS)

Class Period: March 16, 2017 to August 1, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 4, 2019

The complaint, filed on September 3, 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) Canada Goose sourced the down and fur used in its clothing products in a way that treated animals in an unethical and inhumane manner; (ii) Canada Goose was thus non-compliant with relevant FTC regulations pertaining to false advertising with respect to its sourcing practices; (iii) accordingly, Canada Goose was the subject of an ongoing FTC investigation regarding false advertising; and (iv) as a result, the company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 2, 2017, the non-profit organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) issued a press release alleging that Canada Goose suppliers used unethical measures to obtain the down and fur used in creating the company’s clothing merchandise (the PETA Press Release). The PETA Press Release also stated that PETA had issued a complaint to the FTC regarding these practices because the company represented in communications and promotional materials that its clothing was produced with down and fur from sources that treated the animals used in sourcing those materials ethically and humanely.

On this news, Canada Goose’s stock price fell $0.70 per share, or roughly 3.27%, to close at $20.72 per share on November 2, 2017. Nevertheless, even after the PETA Press Release, Canada Goose continued to represent that the down and fur used in producing its clothing products were collected using humane and ethical practices.

Then, on June 17, 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a closing letter to Canada Goose’s legal counsel. The FTC Closing Letter stated that the FTC had investigated Canada Goose’s advertising practices for possible violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), citing concern[s] that Canada Goose may have made false or misleading representations about the treatment of geese whose down is used in Canada Goose’s apparel.

On this news, Canada Goose’s stock price fell $0.50 per share, or 1.36%, to close at $36.17 per share on June 17, 2019. According to an article published on July 12, 2019 by Truth In Advertising (TINA) a well-known watchdog for deceptive marketing practices Canada Goose continued to deny that it had changed the substance of its prior statements. At least in part as a result of Canada Goose’s refusal to admit it had changed the substance of its prior marketing materials and communications, the company’s securities continued to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

Finally, on August 1, 2019, the New York Post published an article entitled Canada Goose pulls claims about its ethical treatment of animals (the New York Post Article). According to the New York Post Article, Canada Goose had abandoned its claims of ethical treatment of animals used in making its winter jackets and clothing in response to the FTCs regulatory review. The New York Post article also reported PETAs assertion that its complaint to the FTC in 2017 had precipitated the FTCs investigation into Canada Goose for potential violations of the FTC Act.

On this news, Canada Goose’s stock price fell $2.21 per share, or over 4.7%, to close at $44.58 per share on August 1, 2019

To learn more about the Canada Goose class action, go to: https://bespc.com/goos.   

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation.  For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. 

Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com

Is your business listed correctly on America’s largest city directory network of 1,000 portals?