<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="NEW YORK, March 25, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Aaron’s, Inc, (AAN), Canaan, Inc. (CAN), PharmaCielo, Ltd. (Other OTC: PCLOF), and Tilray, Inc. (TLRY). 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.
” data-reactid=”12″>NEW YORK, March 25, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Aaron’s, Inc, (AAN), Canaan, Inc. (CAN), PharmaCielo, Ltd. (Other OTC: PCLOF), and Tilray, Inc. (TLRY). 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.
<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Aaron’s, Inc. (AAN) ” data-reactid=”13″>Aaron’s, Inc. (AAN)
Class Period: March 2, 2018 and February 19, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 28, 2020
On July 26, 2018, Aaron’s filed a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), reporting the Company’s financial and operating results for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2018. That Quarterly Report disclosed that, in July 2018, Aaron’s received civil investigative demands (“CIDs”) from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) requesting the production of documents and answers to written questions to determine whether disclosures related to financial products offered by the Company through its AB and Progressive segments were in violation of the FTC Act.
On this news, Aaron’s stock price fell $5.38 per share, or 11.01%, to close at $43.47 per share on July 27, 2018.
On April 25, 2019, Aaron’s filed another Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, reporting the Company’s financial and operating results for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019. That Quarterly Report disclosed that, in April 2019, Aaron’s AB segment “received an unrelated CID from the FTC focused on certain transactions involving the purchase and sale of customer lease agreements, and whether such transactions violated the FTC Act.”
Then, on February 20, 2020, Aaron’s issued a press release announcing the Company’s financial results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2019. Among other results, Aaron’s reported that the Company’s Progressive segment had reached an agreement in principle with FTC staff regarding the CID from the FTC that Progressive received in July 2018. Aaron’s advised investors that “[u]nder the proposed agreement, which requires final approval by FTC Commissioners and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Progressive will make a payment of $175 million and enhance certain compliance-related activities, including monitoring, disclosure and reporting requirements.”
On this news, Aaron’s stock price fell $10.70 per share, or 19.06%, to close at $45.45 per share on February 20, 2020.
The Complaint, filed on February 28, 2020, 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: (i) that Aaron’s had inadequate disclosure controls, procedures, and compliance measures; (ii) that, consequently, the operations of Aaron’s Progressive and AB segments were in violation of the FTC Act and/or relevant FTC regulations; (iii) that, consequently, Aaron’s earnings from those segments were partially derived from unlawful business practices and were thus unsustainable; (iv) the full extent of Aaron’s liability regarding the FTC’s investigation into its Progressive and AB segments, Aaron’s noncompliance with the FTC Act, and the likely negative consequences of all the foregoing on the Company’s financial results; and (v) that, as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="For more information on the Aaron’s class action go to: https://bespc.com/AAN-2” data-reactid=”22″>For more information on the Aaron’s class action go to: https://bespc.com/AAN-2
<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Canaan, Inc. (CAN) ” data-reactid=”23″>Canaan, Inc. (CAN)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering, which commenced on or about November 20, 2019 (the “IPO” or “Offering”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 4, 2020
Canaan, a company specializing in Blockchain servers and ASIC microprocessor solutions for use in bitcoin mining, completed its initial public offering in November of 2019. Then, on February 20, 2020, an investment analyst operating under the pseudonym Marcus Aurelius published a short report entitled “Canaan Fodder” claiming, among other things, that Canaan was engaged in several undisclosed related-party transactions that lacked economic substance.
The complaint, filed on March 4, 2020, alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the purported “strategic cooperation” was actually a transaction with a related party; (2) the company’s financial health was worse than what was actually reported; (3) the company had recently removed numerous distributors from its website just prior to the IPO, many of which were small or suspicious businesses; and (4) several of the company’s largest Chinese clients in prior years were clients who were not in the Bitcoin mining industry and, thus, would likely not be repeat customers. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="For more information on the Canaan class action go to: https://bespc.com/can” data-reactid=”33″>For more information on the Canaan class action go to: https://bespc.com/can
<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="PharmaCielo Ltd. (Other OTC: PCLOF) ” data-reactid=”34″>PharmaCielo Ltd. (Other OTC: PCLOF)
Class Period: June 21, 2019 to March 2, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 5, 2020
On March 2, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report explaining that PharmaCielo had failed to disclose: (i) transactions with related parties; (ii) misleading business transactions and loans with General Extract LLC and XPhyto Therapeutics Corp. (“XPhyto”); (iii) the delayed state of its Research Technology and Processing Centre’s construction; and (iv) the poor state of its Rionegro Growing Facility.
On this news, shares of PharmaCielo fell $0.5132 per share over the next two trading days, or 36.14%, to close at $0.9068 per share on March 3, 2020.
The complaint, filed on March 6, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PharmaCielo engaged in an undisclosed related party transactions with General Extract; (2) PharmaCielo engaged in misleading transactions and loans with General Extract and XPhyto; (3) PharmaCielo’s Research Technology and Processing Centre was never on-schedule and is delayed; (4) the Rionegro facility is located on a floodplain and contaminated with mold and pesticides from its previous tenants; (5) PharmaCielo’s Cauca Department land has never been utilized by the Company and is idle; and (6) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="For more information on the PharmaCielo class action go to: https://bespc.com/PCLOF” data-reactid=”40″>For more information on the PharmaCielo class action go to: https://bespc.com/PCLOF
<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Tilray, Inc. (TLRY) ” data-reactid=”41″>Tilray, Inc. (TLRY)
Class Period: January 15, 2019 to March 2, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 5, 2020
On March 2, 2020, Tilray issued a press release announcing the Company’s financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2019. Among other results, Tilray reported a net loss for the year of $321.2 million, or $3.20 per share, compared to $67.7 million, or $0.82 per share, for 2018. In addition, Tilray disclosed that “the Company recorded non-cash charges of $112.1 million related to impairment of the Authentic Brands Group LLC (‘ABG’) agreement as well as $68.6 million in inventory reserves.”
On this news, Tilray’s stock price fell $2.33 per share, or 15.18%, to close at $13.02 per share on March 3, 2020.
The complaint, filed on March 6, 2020, 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) the purported advantages of the ABG Agreement were significantly overstated; (ii) the underperformance of the ABG Agreement would foreseeably have a significant impact on the Company’s financial results; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times
<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="For more information on the Tilray class action go to: https://bespc.com/TLRY” data-reactid=”47″>For more information on the Tilray class action go to: https://bespc.com/TLRY
<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="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. ” data-reactid=”48″>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.
<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com” data-reactid=”49″>Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com
Add Comment