NEW YORK, July 16, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Pivotal Software, Inc., Eros International Plc, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, and Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. 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.
Pivotal Software, Inc. (NYSE: PVTL)
Class Period: Securities pursuant or traceable to Pivotal’s April 2018 initial public offering (“IPO”) and/or securities purchased or acquired between April 24, 2019 and June 4, 2019 (the “Class Period”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 19, 2019
The complaint filed on June 21, 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: Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as its customers and the industry’s sentiment shifted away from Pivotal’s principal products because the Company’s products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 4, 2019, post-market, Pivotal reported its financial and operating results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2020, advising investors that “sales execution and a complex technology landscape impacted the quarter.” Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives called the quarter a “train wreck” and characterized the Company’s operating results as “disastrous,” asserting that Pivotal’s “management team does not have a handle on the underlying issues negatively impacting its sales cycles and the activity in the field which gives us concern that this quarter will be the start of some ‘dark days ahead’ for Pivotal (and its investors).” On this news, Pivotal’s stock price fell $7.60.
To learn more about the Pivotal Software class action go to: https://bespc.com/PVTL-2
Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS)
Class Period: July 28, 2017- June 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they reported in Eros’s public financial disclosures; (2) because of this scheme, Eros’s financial position was weaker than what the Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company’s Indian subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missed loan payments and had its credit downgraded; and (4) due to the foregoing, defendants’ statements about Eros’s receivables, business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and 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 Eros class action go to: https://bespc.com/eros-2
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA)
Class Period: August 4, 2017- May 10, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019
The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements denying that Teva “engaged in any conduct that would give rise to liability” in various antitrust proceedings and investigations that enveloped the company. In truth, and as Defendants failed to disclose to investors, (i) contrary to its public denials, Teva had in fact engaged in a vast, industry-wide price-fixing scheme and other collusive misconduct since at least 2012; (ii) Teva was not only a participant, but the company at the heart of the anticompetitive scheme; and (iii) several Teva employees had such deep involvement in the scheme that they would ultimately be named personally as defendants in a sweeping civil enforcement action filed by the AGs of virtually every state in the nation. On December 9, 2018, it was publicly disclosed that the scope of the State AG’s investigation had expanded greatly to include 300 drugs and at least 16 companies, exposing “the largest cartel in the history of the United States.” On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $0.97 per share or 5%, to close at $18.44 per share on December 10, 2018. On May 10, 2019, a coalition of 44 states filed a 524-page antitrust complaint revealing previously undisclosed facts regarding Teva’s participation in the generic drug price-fixing conspiracy. Among other things, the action detailed Teva’s role as a “consistent participant” in the conspiracy, implementing price increases on upwards of 110 generic drugs and colluding with competitors regarding over 85 different generic drugs. On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $2.13 per share or approximately 15%, to close at $12.23 per share on May 13, 2019.
For more information on the Teva class action go to: https://bespc.com/teva
Helius Medical Technologies (NASDAQ: HSDT)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 9, 2019
Class Period: November 9, 2017 to April 10, 2019
The complaint filed on July 9. 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 clinical study on the use of PoNS did not produce statistically significant results regarding the effectiveness of the treatment; (2) that, as a result, the clinical study did not support the Company’s application for regulatory clearance; (3) that, as a result, the Company was unlikely to receive regulatory approval of PoNS; and (4) 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 Helius class action go to: https://bespc.com/HSDT
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.