BDX), Sterling Bancorp, Inc. (SBT), Crown Castle International Corp. (NYSE: CCI, CCI-A), and MGP Ingredients, Inc. (MGPI). 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.
Class Period: November 5, 2019 to February 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2020
Becton purports to be a medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and sells a broad range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic products. It has three business segments: BD Medical; BD Life Sciences, and BD Interventional. The Company’s Alaris pump is a large volume infusion pump that continuously or intermittently delivers fluids, medications, blood and blood products to adult, pediatric or neonatal patients.
On February 6, 2020, Becton lowered its fiscal 2020 guidance, announcing that it expected revenue to increase by only 1.5 to 2.5 percent, “to reflect the impact of the remediation effort and anticipated loss of sales of the Alaris infusion system.” According to the Company, the software remediation plan for the Alaris system “will require additional regulatory filings,” and existing customers would have “access to the Alaris System under medical necessity.” Becton further disclosed that it had recorded a $59 million charge in connection with a voluntary recall of certain Alaris pumps.
On this news, Becton’s share price fell $33.74, or nearly 12%, to close at $252.25 per share on February 6, 2020.
The complaint, filed on February 27, 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 certain of Becton’s Alaris infusion pumps experienced software errors and alarm prioritization issues; (2) that, as a result, the Company was investing in remediation efforts to address these product issues, rather than a software upgrade to “make enhancements;” (3) that the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory delays in connection with the software remediation; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Becton was reasonably likely to recall certain of its Alaris infusion pumps; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
https://bespc.com/bdx” data-reactid=”20″>For more information on the Becton class action go to: https://bespc.com/bdx
Class Period: Securities purchased between November 17, 2017 and December 8, 2019 (the “Class Period”) and/or pursuant or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering, which commenced on or about November 17, 2017 (the “IPO” or “Offering”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2020
On December 9, 2019, the Company disclosed that it “voluntarily and temporarily suspended its Advantage Loan program in connection with an ongoing internal review of the program’s documentation.” On that same day, Sterling’s share price fell $2.16 per share, or nearly 23%, to close at $7.29 per share.
https://bespc.com/SBT” data-reactid=”26″>For more information on the Sterling Bancorp class action go to: https://bespc.com/SBT
Class Period: February 16, 2018 to February 26, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2020
On February 26, 2020, Crown Castle announced that its historical accounting practice with respect to recognizing servicing revenues from its tower installation services “was not acceptable under GAAP.” The Company stated that it would restate its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 and for the first three quarters in the year ended December 31, 2019.
On this news, shares of Crown Castle fell $14.38 per share, or over 8.8%, to close at $148.31 per share on February 27, 2020.
The complaint, filed on February 27, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Crown Castle’s internal control over financial reporting and disclosures controls and procedures were ineffective and materially weak; (2) Crown Castle’s financial accounting and reporting was not in accordance with GAAP; (3) Crown Castle’s net income, adjusted EBITDA, and adjusted funds from operations were inflated; (4) Crown Castle would need to restate its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, and unaudited financial information for the quarterly and year-to-date periods in the year ended December 31, 2018 and for the first three quarters in the year ended December 31, 2019; and (5) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
https://bespc.com/CCI” data-reactid=”37″>For more information on the Crown Castle class action go to: https://bespc.com/CCI
Class Period: February 17, 2019 to February 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 28, 2020
Beginning in 2015, instead of selling its whiskey as an unaged new distillate, which was then barreled and aged by its customers, MGP started storing significant amounts of barreled distillate that it could later sell as aged whiskey. After four years of aging, the Company was expected to commence selling this aged whiskey in 2019 at three times the price of unaged whiskey.
On May 1, 2019, defendants announced MGP’s first quarter 2019 financial results, including “lighter” than consensus results due to “lower volumes” in sales of aged whiskey, but claimed that MGP was experiencing favorable demand and pricing trends and “confidently confirm[ed]” the Company’s guidance for the remainder of the year. On this news, the price of MGP stock declined nearly 23%.
On July 31, 2019, defendants announced weak second quarter 2019 financial results, again due to poor sales of aged whiskey. In addition, defendants affirmed MGP’s net sales growth guidance, but revised downward their guidance for operating income growth. On this news, the price of MGP stock declined more than 25%.
On October 31, 2019, defendants announced disappointing third quarter 2019 financial results, again due to poor whiskey sales, and blamed the failure to transact aged whiskey sales on customer delays and “funding issues,” but reiterated that MGP remained on track to achieve its revised full-year 2019 guidance.
Following these disclosures, the Company’s stock price declined nearly 12%.
On January 17, 2020, the Company announced its preliminary full-year 2019 financial results, which significantly missed the guidance defendants had reiterated with just two months to go in the year. Following these disclosures, the price of MGP stock declined more than 27% to close at $38.18 per share on January 17, 2020.
Then, on February 26, 2020, the Company announced its finalized full-year 2019 financial results, confirming its previously announced preliminary results, including that it had fallen “significantly short of . . . guidance” due to its failure to sell aged whiskey during the fourth quarter of 2019. The Company also revealed that aged whiskey sales had declined year over year and that it had failed to secure the contracts it had previously highlighted to investors.
On this news, the price of MGP stock declined 11% to close at $28.42 per share on February 26, 2020, which represented a 67% price decline from the stock’s Class Period high of $88.06 per share.
The complaint, filed on February 28, 2020, alleges that during the Class Period defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information concerning MGP’s business and financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that MGP had not completed any significant sales of its aged whiskey inventory, the Company had been unable to sell its aged whiskey at the price premium represented to investors, a glut of aged whiskey inventory and shifts in consumer behavior had lowered the value of the Company’s aged whiskey inventory and materially impaired its ability to negotiate significant sales on favorable contract terms, and as a consequence, defendants’ full-year 2019 financial guidance lacked a reasonable basis and was materially misleading. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, the price of MGP common stock was artificially inflated to a high of more than $88 per share during the Class Period.
https://bespc.com/MGPI” data-reactid=”50″>For more information on the MGP Ingredients class action go to: https://bespc.com/MGPI
www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. ” data-reactid=”51″>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.