Sep 11, 2019 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Sonim Technologies, Inc. (“Sonim” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: SONM) to determine whether Sonim or any of its officers violated federal securities laws.
If you invested in Sonim and suffered losses or wish to learn more about Kehoe Law Firm’s securities investigation, please contact either John Kehoe, Esq, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected].
On September 10, 2019, Sonim, “a leading U.S. provider of ultra-rugged mobility solutions designed specifically for task workers physically engaged in their work environments,” issued “revised financial guidance for fiscal 2019.”
Specifically, the Company stated the following:
Net revenues are expected to be flat or slightly below 2018 net revenues of $135.7 million reported in fiscal 2018;
GAAP net loss, defined as net revenues less cost of goods sold, selling, general and administrative expenses, operating expenses, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses, is expected to be up to $15 million;
Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP metric, is expected to be a loss of up to $5 million. [Emphasis added.]
Sonim also stated that “[s]everal factors have collectively contributed to [Sonim’s] revised financial outlook for fiscal 2019, primarily stemming from changes in U.S. wireless carrier forecasts for the launch of Sonim’s new products as well as launch delays due to software issues related to these new introductions.”
Additionally, the Company stated that it “. . . bases its forecasts on its wireless carrier’s forecasts of their purchase of Sonim’s products. Over the past few weeks, these carriers lowered those forecasts for Sonim’s new product introductions. This summer Sonim had expected, based on customer input, carriers to subsidize Sonim phones post-launch, to place new releases in retail locations, and to sign up push-to-talk customers to Sonim’s new generation of phones. In each of these cases, there have been significant delays and changes in the rollout of these efforts, resulting in a reduction of Sonim’s expected net revenues in the second half of the year.” [Emphasis added.]
Sonim announced it “ . . . has experienced technical challenges related to its XP8 smartphone and other general non-systemic, accessory-related issues in its feature phones, which cumulatively resulted in lost sales momentum. These challenges have diverted resources away from launching smaller Tier 2 carrier customers and, as such, delayed the launch of Sonim devices to their customer base.”
On this news, Sonim shares fell significantly, closing down 46.74% on September 10, 2019, thereby injuring Sonim investors.
Aug 22, 2019 | Securities Class Action Archive
A class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Burford Capital Limited securities between March 18, 2015 and August 7, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
If you purchased securities of Burford Capital Limited (“Burford Capital” or the “Company”) during the Class Period and suffered losses, please click Join a Securities Class Action to participate in the lawsuit or contact either John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], to learn more about the lawsuit or the securities investigation.
Burford Capital shareholders have 60 days from August 21, 2019 to move the Court to be appointed lead plaintiff.
According to the class action complaint, the Burford Capital Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Burford Capital has been manipulating its metrics, including return on invested capital (“ROIC”) and internal rate of return (“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 Capital’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On August 7, 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. short-seller Muddy Waters accused the litigation-finance firm Burford Capital Ltd. . . . of poor governance and mismarking the value of legal cases it invests in, wiping around 50% off the value of the U.K. firm’s shares.”
The Wall Street Journal also reported that “Muddy Waters, headed by Carson Block, on Wednesday said Burford’s stock valuation and earnings are based on ‘meaningless’ metrics that the company manipulates. The firm released a report and video interview with Mr. Block making the claims at the start of London trading and the shares swooned.”
Additionally, The Wall Street Journal reported that “. . . Muddy Waters said Burford’s management stands to benefit from aggressively marking up the value of legal cases because it causes the stock owned by the company’s executives to rise in value. It criticized the company’s governance, including a lack of turnover on Burford’s board since it listed its shares in London in 2009.”
On this news, shares of Burford Capital dropped $5.90, or 42.45%, to close at $8.00 on August 7, 2019 and Burford Capital’s ADRs fell $6.15, or 43.93%, damaging Burford Capital investors.
Purchasers of Burford Capital securities during the Class Period who suffered losses are encouraged to contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected] , or John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], to learn more about the securities investigation.
Aug 14, 2019 | Securities Class Action Archive
A class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court on behalf of individuals and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, the securities of ProPetro Holding Corp. (“ProPetro” or the “Company”) (NYSE: PUMP) a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with ProPetro’s March 2017 initial public offering (“IPO”); and/or b) between March 17, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The lawsuit is pursuing claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased ProPetro securities and suffered losses, please contact either John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], to learn more about the lawsuit or the securities investigation.
In March 2017, ProPetro concluded its IPO, in which it sold 25 million shares of common stock at $14.00 per share.
On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, ProPetro issued a press release delaying its second quarter earnings conference call and quarterly report, citing an ongoing review by its audit committee.
Specifically, ProPetro announced its “. . . preliminary financial and operational results for the second quarter of 2019 and delayed its second quarter earnings conference call in order to allow additional time to complete its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2019 (the “Form 10-Q”).” [Emphasis added.]
The Company also stated that
[t]he delay in the Form 10-Q is due to an ongoing review by the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors which initially focused on the disclosure of agreements previously entered into by the Company with AFGlobal for the purchase of Durastim® hydraulic fracturing fleets and effective communications related thereto. A corrective release regarding these agreements which addressed the disclosure issue was previously issued on June 28, 2019.
As part of the review, the audit committee expanded its work to include, among other items, expense reimbursements and certain transactions involving related parties or potential conflicts of interest, as described in the Company’s current report on Form 8-K filed today, August 8, 2019. While the additional work has resulted in the reversal of certain expense reimbursements, the establishment of a disclosure committee and other improvements, the audit committee and management have not identified to date any items that would require revision or restatement of the Company’s historical financial statements. The audit committee expects to complete its review within the next 30 days. [Emphasis added.]
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $4.59 per share, or over 26%, to close at $12.75 per share on August 9, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
By the time of the class action lawsuit, ProPetro stock traded as low as $11.44 per share, a decline of approximately 18% from the $14 per share IPO price.
The class action complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, ProPetro Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about ProPetro’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, ProPetro Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that ProPetro’s executive officers were improperly reimbursed for certain expenses; (2) that the Company had engaged in certain undisclosed transactions with related parties; (3) that the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; (4) that ProPetro lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about ProPetro’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
ProPetro shareholders who suffered losses are encouraged to contact either John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], to learn more about the lawsuit or the securities investigation.
Aug 8, 2019 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential claims on behalf of shareholders of Grubhub Inc. (“Grubhub” or the “Company”) (NYSE: GRUB) to determine whether Grubhub and certain Grubhub officers or directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Grubhub and the Company’s investors.
On July 11, 2019, the New York Post reported that New York City council member Mark Gjonaj (“Gjonaj”) asked New York’s Attorney General, Letitia James, to commence an antitrust probe of Grubhub. Specifically, the New York Post reported that the “time may have come” for New York’s Attorney General “to revisit the terms of a 2013 settlement agreement that cleared the way for Grubhub’s acquisition of Seamless.” In a letter obtained by the New York Post, Gjonaj stated that he “believe[d] that Grubhub’s outsized market share and heavy-handed tactics could lead artificially reduced competition which in turn my drive up the commissions paid by struggling locally owned restaurants.”
The New York Post also reported that “[i]n June, the City Council held a hearing on how Grubhub charges fees as high as 30% for its services and questioned Grubhub executives about [t]he [New York Post’s] reports that the company charged restaurants thousands of dollars in commissions for phone orders that never happened.”
Additionally, the New York Post reported that “New York’s Liquor Authority was developing new rules that will significantly curb the delivery industry’s ability to charge double-digit percentages for online ordering and delivery.” This news, according to the New York Post, “sent Grubhub’s shares down 4%, to $74 a share.”
If you purchased Grubhub securities, please contact either John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], to learn more about the Grubhub shareholder investigation.
Aug 7, 2019 | Securities Class Action Archive
Broker-Dealers and Broker-Dealer Representatives Paid “Steep Commissions to Sell Troubled Private Placements”
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating alleged wrongdoing and potential fraud at GPB Capital Holdings, LLC (“GPB Capital”) and its limited partnership funds, as well as David Gentile, GPB Capital’s founder and Chief Executive Officer; William Jacoby, its Chief Financial Officer; Roger Anscher, its Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel; and Michael Cohn, GPB Capital’s Chief Compliance Officer.
On June 24, 2019, InvestmentNews.com reported that “[b]roker-dealers and their reps who sold private placements for GPB Capital were paid tens of millions of dollars in commissions, but now must face clients whose investments have dropped in value dramatically.” InvestmentNews.com also reported that
[a]ccording to a GPB document sent to broker-dealers . . ., GPB raised $1.8 billion from wealthy investors who bought the high-risk private placements from registered reps and their broker-dealers. Collectively, they were paid $167 million in fees and commissions for the transactions. That means brokers and their firms collected 9.3% of the money clients invested into GPB private placements. [Emphasis added.]
An unidentified broker-dealer, according to InvestmentNews.com, “. . . was dismayed by the latest valuations of the private placements by GPB, which acknowledged in March that it was being investigated by the FBI.”
GPB Capital describes itself as a “New York-based alternative asset management firm that seeks to acquire income-producing private companies.” GPB Capital raised more than $1.5 billion in capital held in private limited partnerships that invest primarily in auto dealerships and waste management businesses. Interests in GPB funds were sold through independent broker-dealers, including Arkadios Capital; FSC Securities Corp; Royal Alliance Associates, Inc.; Sagepoint Financial Inc.; and Woodbury Financial Services, Inc.
GPB Capital Accused of “Massive Securities Fraud” in Lawsuit Filed by an Auto Dealer
On July 30, 2019, InvestmentNews.com reported that
[t]he silence emanating from GPB Capital is both maddening and infuriating to the broker-dealers and advisers that sold $1.8 billion in high-risk private placements created by GPB.
The red alert is flashing; GPB recently reported the value of those funds have been decimated, and currently are being valued at $1.1 billion, a decline of almost 40%.
Brokers want answers now, and, according to one executive at a broker-dealer that sold the alternative investment funds, GPB management is not giving any. Instead, GPB is telling the 60 or so firms that sold the private placement and the clients who bought them to wait until September when an audit will be completed for more information about the pricing of their funds.
Until then, brokers and clients can mull over allegations made in a lawsuit this month by a business partner of GPB Capital who claimed that GPB engaged in “serious financial misconduct” and tried to push him out after he complained to the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a published report. [Emphasis added.]
On July 19, 2019, according to InvestmentNews.com, “. . . a complaint [was] filed in Norfolk Superior Court in Massachusetts . . . by David Rosenberg, chief executive of Prime Automotive Group. He accused GPB of engaging in ‘a massive securities fraud,’ in which it used money from investors to prop up the performance of auto dealerships it owns, as well as to finance payments to other investors.”
Have You Invested in GPB Capital Funds?
If you have invested in either GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP; GPB Cold Storage LP; GPB Eurobond Finance PLC; GPB Holdings II, LP; GPB Holdings III, LP; GPB Holdings Qualified, LP; GPB Holdings, LP; GPB NYC Development, LP; GPB Scientific, LLC; GPB Waste Management, LP (formerly known as GPB Waste Management Fund, LP) and have questions or concerns, please contact either John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
Aug 2, 2019 | Securities Class Action Archive
A class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Carbonite, Inc. (“Carbonite” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:CARB) during the period between February 7, 2019 and July 25, 2019 (the “Class Period”). The class action complaint charges Carbonite and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased the securities of Carbonite during the Class Period February 7, 2019-July 25, 2019 and suffered financial losses, please click Join a Securities Class Action to participate in the lawsuit or contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or , to learn more about the lawsuit or the securities investigation.
Carbonite investors and shareholders have until September 30, 2019 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information 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 allegedly 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; and (iii) the poor quality and technological flaws of the Server Backup VM Edition were 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 for issuing its positive projections and financial forecasts.
Subsequently, on July 25, 2019, Carbonite, according to the complaint, announced that it was withdrawing the Server Backup VM Edition from the marketplace and consequently dramatically lowered its financial projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020. On the same day, Carbonite’s Chief Executive Officer announced he was leaving the Company.
On this news, the price of Carbonite stock, according to the complaint, dropped more than 24%, from a close of $23.90 per share on July 25, 2019 to a close of $18.01 per share on July 26, 2019.
The complaint alleges that the Carbonite Defendants are liable for: (i) making false statements; or (ii) failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about Carbonite. Defendants’ fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Carbonite stock was a success, as it: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Carbonite’s prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflated the price of Carbonite common stock; (iii) enabled Defendants Mohamad S. Ali and Anthony Folger, as well as other Carbonite insiders, to collectively sell close to $3 million of their personally-held Carbonite stock to the unsuspecting public; and (iv) caused Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Carbonite common stock at artificially inflated prices.
