Loading, Please Wait...

CST: 08/12/2019 13:28:47   

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against UP Fintech, Quad/Graphics, Tandy Leather, and Resideo Technologies and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

24 Days ago

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 UP Fintech Holding Limited (NASDAQ: TIGR), Quad/Graphics, Inc. (NYSE: QUAD), Tandy Leather Factory, Inc. (NASDAQ: TLF), and Resideo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: REZI). 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.

UP Fintech Holding Limited (NASDAQ: TIGR)

Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019 (the “IPO” or “Offering”) and/or purchased between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019 (the “Class Period”).

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 6, 2020

On February 22, 2019, Fintech filed a registration statement on Form F-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which was declared effective by the SEC on March 19, 2019 (the “Registration Statement”). The Registration Statement was filed with respect to the underlying Class A ordinary shares represented by the ADSs to be sold in the IPO.

On March 20, 2019, Fintech filed a prospectus for the IPO (the “Prospectus”), which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the “Offering Documents”). That same day, Fintech announced the pricing of its IPO of 13 million ADSs, each representing fifteen Class A ordinary shares of the Company, at $8.00 per ADS. The ADSs began trading the same day on the NASDAQ under the symbol “TIGR.” Fintech raised $104 million in proceeds from the IPO.

The complaint, filed on November 6, 2019, alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with 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, in the Offering Documents and during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fintech was experiencing a material decrease in commissions because of a negative trend related to risk averse investors in the market; (ii) Fintech was unable to absorb costs associated with the rapid growth of its business and its status as a publicly listed company on a U.S. exchange; (iii) Fintech was incurring significant additional expenses related to, inter alia, employee headcount and employee compensation and benefits; (iv) all of the foregoing had led to Fintech significantly increasing operating costs and expenses; and (v) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein, and the Company’s Class Period statements were likewise materially false and/or misleading.

On May 17, 2019, during pre-market hours, Fintech issued a press release announcing its unaudited first quarter 2019 financial results—the Company’s first quarterly earnings announcement following the IPO (the “1Q19 Press Release”). In that press release, Fintech disclosed a 4.1% decrease in commissions, noting that “[i]nvestors were relatively risk averse at beginning of this year which leads to moderated trading activities and a slight decrease in trading commission.” The 1Q19 Press Release also disclosed, among other issues, that Fintech’s operating costs and expenses and net loss attributable to the Company had begun to skyrocket as a result of increases in expenses related to employee headcount, employee compensation and benefits, and office space and leasehold improvements, as well as rapid customer growth, expanded market data usage for its customers, and additional professional expenses as a listed company.

Specifically, with respect to Fintech’s drastically increasing operating costs and expenses and net loss attributable to the Company, the 1Q19 Press Release disclosed that total operating costs and expenses for the first quarter of 2019 increased by 36.4% to $14.0 million from $10.3 million in the first quarter of 2018, and that employee compensation and benefits increased by 60.8% from $4.9 million in the first quarter of 2018 to $7.8 million in the first quarter of 2019.

On this news, Fintech’s ADS price fell $1.21 per share, or 17.34%, to close at $5.77 per share on May 17, 2019.

For more information on the UP Fintech class action go to: https://bespc.com/tigr

Quad/Graphics, Inc. (NYSE: QUAD)

Class Period: February 21, 2018 to October 29, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 6, 2020

On October 29, 2019, the Company slashed its quarterly dividend to $0.15 per share, announced plans to divest its book business, and reported third quarter 2019 financial results. Analysts were “absolutely shocked by these developments given the confidence management had just three months ago.”

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $6.42 per share, or nearly 57%, to close at $4.85 per share on October 30, 2019.

The complaint, filed on November 7, 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 book business in United States was underperforming; (2) that, as a result, the Company was likely to divest its book business; (3) that the Company was unreasonably vulnerable to decreases in market prices; (4) that, to remain financially flexible while market prices decreased, the Company was likely to cut its quarterly dividend and expand its cost reduction programs; 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.

For more information on the Quad/Graphics class action go to: https://bespc.com/quad

Tandy Leather Factory, Inc. (NASDAQ: TLF)

Class Period: March 7, 2018 to August 25, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 6, 2020

On August 13, 2019, the Company disclosed that its Audit Committee was investigating “certain aspects of the Company’s methods of valuation and expensing of costs of inventory and related issues regarding the Company’s business and operations.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.55 per share, or over 10%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $4.90 per share on August 15, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on August 15, 2019, the Company disclosed that it was unable to timely file the Company’s quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2019 due to the Audit Committee’s investigation.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.40 per share, or over 8%, to close at $4.50 per share on August 16, 2019.

Finally, on October 18, 2019, the Company revealed that certain financial statements should no longer be relied upon, citing “misstatements primarily relating to the Company’s methods of valuation and expensing of costs of inventory and related issues.” It also disclosed that its Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Tina Castillo, had resigned from her positions.

The complaint, filed on November 7, 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 certain costs of inventory had been improperly valued and expensed; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s financial results for certain periods were misstated; (3) that the Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; (4) that there was a material weakness in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; 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.

For more information on the Tandy Leather class action go to: https://bespc.com/tlf

Resideo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: REZI)

Class Period: October 10, 2018 to October 22, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 7, 2019

The Company was formed through a spin-off from Honeywell International Inc. on October 29, 2018. The Company began trading under the ticker symbol “REZI” on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) on October 29, 2018.

The complaint, filed on November 8, 2019, alleges that during the Class Period, Resideo continued to assure investors that the Company was poised to meet its 2018 guidance at the high end of its forecasted range, and more importantly, for 2019 the Company would achieve 4%+ organic growth and ~13% adjusted EBITDA margin. Further, while the Company acknowledged it had experienced operational disruptions (primarily administrative) in connection with the spin-off, defendants repeatedly assured investors that any negative effects of the spin-off were largely “behind [them]” or minimizing and reiterated their fiscal year (“FY”) 2019 guidance for the Company, stating as late as August 8, 2019 that the Company’s performance to date put it on track to make its FY19 revenue guidance. Each of these representations was materially false and misleading when made because defendants failed to disclose the following true facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (a) the negative operational effects of the spin-off were more substantial and persistent than disclosed and had negatively affected the Company’s product sales, supply chain, and gross margins, putting Resideo’s FY19 financial forecasts at risk; and (b) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial guidance lacked a reasonable basis and the Company was not on track to make its FY19 guidance as claimed. As a result of defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions, Resideo stock traded at artificially inflated prices of more than $26 per share during the Class Period.

Then, on October 22, 2019, Resideo shocked investors when it issued its preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2019, announcing that it had missed revenue and earnings targets and was lowering its recently reaffirmed revenue outlook for FY19 by $80 million.

Also on October 22, 2019, the Company announced that defendant Ragan, the Company’s CFO, would be leaving as of November 6, 2019.

Following these disclosures and a significant reduction in the Company’s outlook for free cash flow, Resideo’s stock price declined more than 40%, from a close of $15.23 per share on October 22, 2019 to a close of $9.50 per share on October 23, 2019.

For more information on the Resideo class action go to: https://bespc.com/rezi

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. 

Contact Information:
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?