World News: 01:00 GMT Wednesday 11th September 2019. [Bragar Eagel & Squire via Globe Newswire via SPi World News]
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 Carbonite, Inc. (NASDAQ: CARB), GTT Communications, Inc. (NYSE: GTT), Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (Other OTC: CURLF), and 2U, Inc. (NASDAQ: TWOU). 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.
Class Period: February 7, 2019 to July 25, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 30, 2019
The complaint, filed on August 1, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the technological quality of the Server Backup VM Edition and its potential to add “meaningfully” to Carbonite’s financial performance for fiscal 2019. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Carbonite’s Server Backup VM Edition was of poor quality and technologically flawed; (ii) Carbonite was receiving poor reviews and complaints from customers about the Server Backup VM Edition; (iii) the poor quality and technological flaws of the Server Backup VM Edition was acting as a “disruptive” factor throughout the Carbonite salesforce and keeping that sales organization from closing opportunistically on several larger deals during fiscal 2019; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Carbonite lacked any reasonable basis for issuing its positive projections and financial forecasts.
Finally, on July 25, 2019, Carbonite announced that it was withdrawing its Server Backup VM Edition product from the marketplace and consequently dramatically lowered its financial projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020. That same day, the strongest proponent and supporter of Server Backup VM Edition, Defendant Ali, announced he was leaving Carbonite. On this news, Carbonite stock declined more than 24%, from $23.90 per share when the market closed on July 25, 2019, to $18.01 per share when the market closed on July 26, 2019, on extremely heavy trading volume.
For more information about the Carbonite class action go to:
Class Period: February 26, 2018 to July 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 30, 2019
The complaint, filed on July 30, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period GTT assured investors that it had conducted extensive due diligence on Interoute, and the acquisition was a natural strategic fit for GTT. GTT stated that the two companies "fit together almost hand in glove." After the deal closed, GTT assured investors that Interoute's integration into the Company was "on track" and "not as complex" as many of the Company's previous integrations. Investors began to learn the truth on May 8, 2019, when GTT disclosed a larger than expected loss for the first quarter of 2019, including a sequential decline in revenues. GTT blamed its poor performance on a host of issues with the Interoute integration, including migrating legacy systems into GTT's management database, discrepancies with Interoute's billing systems, and a poor salesforce. GTT further disclosed that shortly before the acquisition, Interoute had made a strategic shift to sell cloud services that deviated from GTT's core cloud networking business.
In response to these disclosures, GTT's stock price plummeted 17.5% on May 8, 2019, and continued to fall the following day, for a two-day decline of over 25%. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against GTT and certain of its senior executives ("Defendants"). The action alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series of false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about GTT's business, operations, and prospects, and the Interoute acquisition specifically. Among other things, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) there were delays in migrating Interoute's legacy systems and processes into GTT's client management database system; (2) Interoute had made a strategic shift to focus on providing cloud services that deviated from GTT's core cloud networking business; (3) Interoute's sales force was underperforming and ineffective at selling GTT's core cloud networking services; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the GTT class action please go to:
Class Period: November 21, 2018 to July 22, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2019
On July 22, 2019, the FDA sent a warning letter to Curaleaf stating that several of the Company’s CBD products sold on the Company’s website were “misbranded drugs” in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
On this news, Curaleaf’s stock price fell $0.54, or over 7%, to close at $7.40 per share on July 23, 2019.
The complaint, filed on August 5, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Curaleaf, on its website and social media pages, marketed its CBD products to be used as drugs and dietary supplements, contrary to law; (2) Curaleaf also sold unapproved animal drugs on its website; (3) such conduct would result in a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”); and (4) 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 Curaleaf class action go to:
Class Period: February 25, 2019 to July 30, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 7, 2019
The complaint, filed on August 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 faced increasing competition in online education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2) that the Company faced certain program-specific issues that negatively impacted its performance; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s business model was not sustainable; (4) that the Company would slow its program launches; 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 2U class action go to:
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 . Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
ContactsBragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.Brandon Walker, Esq.Melissa Fortunato, Esq.(212) 355-4648
Globe Newswire: 01:00 GMT Wednesday 11th September 2019
SPi News is published by Sector Publishing Intelligence Ltd.
© Sector Publishing Intelligence Ltd 2019. [Admin Only]
Sector Publishing Intelligence Ltd.
Agriculture House, Acland Road, DORCHESTER, Dorset DT1 1EF United Kingdom
Registered in England and Wales number 07519380.