NEW YORK, July 01, 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 Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOPE), Conn’s, Inc. (NASDAQ: CONN), Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R), and CytomX Therapeutics, Inc (NASDAQ: CTMX). 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.
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOPE)
Class Period: January 1, 2018 to January 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2020
The complaint, filed on May 12, 2020, alleges that the Company inflated Grand Canyon’s financial results by using a non-profit independent entity, Grand Canyon University (“GCU”) as an off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon was able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of revenue. Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading statements to investors describing GCU as a “non-profit” and “independent” institution and misstating Grand Canyon’s role as a third-party provider of education services. As a result of Defendants’ misrepresentations, shares of Grand Canyon’s common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
Investors slowly began learning the truth of the relationship between the Company and GCU, culminating with Citron Research publishing a report on January 28, 2020 outlining the intricate and allegedly unlawful relationship between the Company and GCU.
Following the publication of the Citron Research report, Grand Canyon shares declined approximately 8% to close at $84.07 per share on January 28, 2020.
For more information on the Grand Canyon Education class action go to: https://bespc.com/LOPE
Conn’s, Inc. (NASDAQ: CONN)
Class Period: September 3, 2019 to December 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 14, 2020
Conn’s is a specialty retailer that sells branded durable consumer goods. Conn’s has two reportable segments: (i) retail, which includes product categories such as furniture, home appliance, consumer electronics, and home office; and (ii) credit, which includes the Company’s in-house consumer credit programs.
On December 10, 2019, before the market opened, Conn’s reported its third quarter 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company reported retail revenues of $280.3 million, compared to $284.1 million in the prior year period. Conn’s attributed the revenue decline to a decrease in same store sales, which “reflects underwriting adjustments made during the three months ended October 31, 2019.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $6.85 per share, or over 33%, to close at $13.65 per share on December 10, 2019.
The complaint, filed on May 15, 2020, 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 Conn’s was experiencing an increase in first payment defaults and 60-plus day delinquencies; (2) that, as a result, Conn’s was reasonably likely to record an increase to its provision for bad debts; (3) that the Company made certain underwriting adjustments, including tightening its standards for new customers and online applicants; (4) that, as a result, the Company’s same-store sales would be adversely impacted; 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 Conn’s class action go to: https://bespc.com/CONN
Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R)
Class Period: July 23, 2015 to February 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020
On July 30, 2019, the Company drastically reduced its full-year 2019 earnings forecast and management indicated that the majority of the lowered guidance reflected Ryder’s weaker valuations of its tractors.
In response to these disclosures, Ryder’s stock price declined 10%, from $59.32 per share to $53.38 per share.
On October 29, 2019, the Company revealed that “management concluded that our residual value estimates likely exceeded the expected future values that would be realized upon the sale of power vehicles in our fleet.” As a result, the Company significantly lowered the residual values for all its vehicles and incurred $177 million in additional depreciation expense in the third quarter of 2019.
In response to these disclosures, Ryder’s stock price declined more than 12% over two trading days, from $55.12 per share to $48.44 per share.
Then, on February 13, 2020, the Company reported that, as a result of the significant reductions to the residual value of its fleet, it had incurred a total of $357 million in depreciation expense for 2019 plus a loss of approximately $58 million on the sale of used vehicles. The Company also announced that, for 2020, it expected to incur another $275 million in depreciation expense on its fleet due to the reductions in residual value plus an additional $20 million estimated loss on used vehicle sales. In response to these disclosures, Ryder’s stock price declined 20% over two trading days, from $50.19 per share to $40.12 per share.
The complaint, filed on May 20, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants misrepresented Ryder’s true financial condition by overstating the residual value of its trucking fleet, which allowed the Company to record smaller depreciation expense on those assets each year, and artificially inflated Ryder’s earnings. Defendants represented to investors that its financial results “benefited from lower depreciation associated with increased residual values” and that the Company had been “conservative” in establishing the residual values of its vehicles. While Ryder kept increasing the expected residual value of its trucking fleet, the actual amount Ryder was receiving from sales of its used trucks had started to decrease beginning in 2015. Nevertheless, when asked about the residual values of the Company’s trucks during Ryder’s July 27, 2016 earnings call, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Robert Sanchez stated that “I wouldn’t envision an increase or decrease in residual values out over the next four, five years.” These and similar statements during the Class Period were false and misleading because Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the residual values that Ryder assigned to its trucking fleet were grossly overstated, which had the effect of allowing the Company to record smaller depreciation expenses and artificially inflated Ryder’s earnings. As a result of these misrepresentations, shares of Ryder common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
For more information on the Ryder class action go to: https://bespc.com/R
CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CTMX)
Class Period: May 17, 2018 to May 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020
CytomX operates as an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company in the U.S. The Company develops a novel class of investigational antibody therapeutics based on its Probody technology platform for the treatment of cancer. CytomX’s lead product candidates in the clinical stage include, among others, CX-072 and CX-2009.
CytomX has been evaluating CX-072 in its “PROCLAIM” series clinical program for several years. For example, the PROCLAIM-CX-072-001 clinical trial was designed to assess the tolerability and preliminary antitumor activity of multiple doses of CX-072 as a monotherapy or as a combination therapy with ipilimumab (which Bristol-Myers Squibb Company markets under the brand name Yervoy) or vemurafenib (which Roche markets under the brand name Zelboraf) in patients with advanced, unresectable solid tumors or lymphoma. The Company also began conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial called PROCLAIM-CX-072-002, which was initiated in October 2019, and is an open-label, multi-center clinical trial evaluating CX-072 in combination with ipilimumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.
Likewise, CytomX had been evaluating CX-2009 under its own “PROCLAIM” brand clinical program. This program includes the PROCLAIM-CX-2009-001 clinical trial, which is a Phase 1/2 trial evaluating the tolerability and preliminary antitumor activity of CX-2009 as a monotherapy, which CytomX initiated in June 2017. This clinical program also proceeded in multiple parts—Parts A and A2, which are monotherapy dose escalation studies; and Part B, which is a Phase 2 expansion study of CX-2009 monotherapy at 7 mg/kg administered every three weeks in up to 40 patients with hormone receptor (ER, PR) positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, which defendants announced in December 2019 based on the tolerability and activity data from Part A and A2 of the study.
On May 13, 2020, CytomX made available abstracts for the Company’s clinical presentations for CX-072 and CX-2009. Results from the PROCLAIMCX-072 clinical program showed a response rate of 8.8%, compared to a response rate of 18.5% in patients receiving the combination of CX-072 and ipilimumab. Meanwhile, results from the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program showed “evidence” of clinical activity at doses at least 4 mg/kg 3x/week, but also suggested a significantly higher rate of serious or greater treatment related toxicity to the eyes at dose equivalents at least 8 mg/kg 3x/week.
Following the release of the foregoing data, CytomX’s stock price fell $5.21 per share, or 36.08%, to close at $9.23 per share on May 14, 2020.
The complaint, filed on May 21, 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) CytomX had downplayed issues with CX-072’s efficacy observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program; (ii) CytomX had similarly downplayed issues with CX-2009’s efficacy and safety observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the CytomX class action go to: https://bespc.com/CTMX
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.