NEW YORK, Oct. 23, 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 Slack Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: WORK), Eldorado Resorts, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERI), Sundial Growers, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNDL), and electroCore, Inc. (NASDAQ: ECOR). 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.
Slack Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: WORK)
Class Period: Securities pursuant to and/or traceable to the company’s June 2019 initial public offering (“IPO”)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 18, 2019
On June 20, 2019, the company filed its prospectus with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. The company registered for the resale of up to 118,429,640 shares of Class A common stock by registered shareholders at a reference price of $26.00. According to the Registration Statement, the resale of the company’s stock was not underwritten by any investment bank and the registered stockholders would purportedly elect whether to sell their shares. Such sales, if any, would be brokerage transactions on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), and Slack would purportedly not receive any proceeds from the sale of shares of Class A common stock by the registered stockholders.
On September 4, 2019, Slack reported its second-quarter fiscal 2019 results and guidance for the third quarter, expecting a wider loss than analysts predicted. On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.69 per share, nearly 12%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $27.38 per share on September 6, 2019.
By the time this class action complaint was filed, Slack’s stock traded as low as $25.72 per share, a significant decline from the $26.00 per share reference price for the Offering.
The complaint, filed on September 19, 2019, alleges that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company’s Slack Platform was susceptible to recurring service-level disruptions; (2) that such disruptions were increasingly likely to occur as the company scaled its services to a larger user base; (3) that the company provides credits even if a customer was not specifically affected by service-level disruptions; (4) that, as a result, any service-level disruptions would have a material adverse impact on the company’s financial results; 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 Slack class action go to: https://bespc.com/work
Eldorado Resorts, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERI)
Class Period: March 1, 2019 to September 2, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 22, 2019
On September 3, 2019, Eldorado revealed that CEO Tom Reeg, president and chief operating officer Anthony Carano, executive chairman Gary Carano, and director James Hawkins had received subpoenas in May pertaining to an ongoing investigation of the executives trading in an undisclosed company tied to James Hawkins.
On this news, Eldorado’s share price fell $3.09, or over 8%, to close at $35.42 on September 3, 2019.
The complaint, filed on September 23, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) several of the company’s executive officers, including CEO Thomas Reeg, engaged in improper trading with respect to the securities of another publicly-traded company; and (2) as a result, defendants’ statements about Eldorado’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the Eldorado class action go to: https://bespc.com/eri
Sundial Growers, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNDL)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant to and/or traceable to the company’s August 1, 2019 initial public offering (“IPO”).
Lead plaintiff deadline: November 25, 2019
On August 1, 2019, Sundial closed its initial public offering (“IPO”), in which it sold 11 million shares at $13.00 per share, yielding $143 million in proceeds. In the Registration Statement for the IPO, the company stated that it produces “high-quality, consistent cannabis.”
On August 14, 2019, cannabis producer Zenabis Global Inc. (“Zenabis”) revealed that “[c]ertain third-party producers failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations. Due to quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of cannabis from a third-party.”
On August 19, 2019, MarketWatch published an article stating that Sundial had sold the cannabis to Zenabis. The article also stated that the cannabis was returned “because it contained visible mold, parts of rubber gloves and other non-cannabis material, according to people familiar with the matter.”
On this same day, the company confirmed that it was resolving an “isolated immaterial matter between Sundial and [a] Licensed Producer.”
The complaint, filed on September 25, 2019, alleges that in the IPO and afterwards defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations to Zenabis Global Inc.; (2) due to material quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of cannabis to Sundial, valued at approximately U.S. $1.9 million (C$2.5 million); and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about Sundial’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Sundial’s stock is currently trading at $4.66 per share, a 64% decrease from the $13.00 IPO price.
For more information on the Sundial class action, go to: https://bespc.com/sndl
electroCore, Inc. (NASDAQ: ECOR)
Class Period: Securities purchased between June 22, 2018 and September 25, 2019 (“the “Class Period”) and/or pursuant or traceable to the company’s June 2018 initial public offering (“IPO”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 25, 2019
In June of 2018, electroCore completed its initial public offering (“IPO”) in which it sold 5.2 million shares at $15.00 per share. On May 14, 2019, the company announced that its first quarter 2019 financial results fell short of investors’ expectations, reporting $410,000 in net sales and an operating loss of $14.2 million.
On this news, the company’s share price fell $1.58, or nearly 29%, to close at $3.75 per share on May 15, 2019.
Then, on September 25, 2019, the company revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requested more information and analysis of clinical data for electroCore’s 510(k) submission, which seeks an expanded indication for the use of gammaCore, the Company’s treatment for pain associated with episodic cluster headache.
On this news, the company’s share price fell $0.79, or over 23%, to close at $2.57 per share on September 25, 2019.
By market close on September 26, 2019, electroCore stock was trading as low as $2.48 per share, an 83% decline from the $15 per share IPO price.
The complaint, filed on September 26, 2019 alleges that throughout the class period and following the IPO 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 that: (1) the company’s lead product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (2) as a result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over existing treatments; (3) the company’s voucher program was not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (4) the company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; (5) the company’s business plan and strategy was not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; (6) the company’s product registry and efforts were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammaCore; (7) the lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; (8) the company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating that gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention; (9) as a result, the company’s 510(k) submission for the use of gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and (10) 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 electroCore class action go to: https://bespc.com/ecor
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