Skip to content Skip to navigation

Securities

SITO Mobile Logo

SITO Mobile Ltd. conducted its initial public stock offering (IPO) on September 16, 2016. The complaint for this class action claims that the company made misleading statements to the pubic before, during, and after this event, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934. First, the complaint says the company did not disclose the highly negative effects of the presidential election on its revenues around the time of its IPO; second, it says that the company’s CEO and CFO were misappropriating the company’s funds. 

Wood Pellets and Rentech Logo

Rentech, Inc. made false or misleading statements in its public statements, the complaint for this securities case alleges, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The statements involve details about plants, repairs, customer agreements, and other things that would have altered the mix of information available to investors, according to the complaint. These include the fact that one of its factories was over 600 miles away from its port, and that the company had overstated its pre-tax gains from a facility sale.

Global Eagle Annual Report Cover

This securities class action revolves around allegedly misleading statements Global Eagle Entertainment made about its new acquisition, Emerging Markets Communications (EMC). According to the complaint, Global Eagle gave investors updates on EMC’s integration without knowing whether the statements were true, this violating Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint claims that the company had poor internal controls over financial reporting and poor abilities in integrating acquisitions, and that it had not done due diligence on EMC.

Pearson College Physics Textbook Cover

Educational publisher Pearson, PLC seems to have been slow in learning its lessons. According to the complaint for this class action, the company lagged in replacing physical textbooks with digital materials, and when it ran into problems, it tried to hide them, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint claims that the company hid the extent of paper textbook returns, improperly assessing goodwill, and also concealed that it was having problems with its new digital products.

FDCPA Circle Logo

While companies owed debts have certain rights, the behavior of third-party debt collectors is highly regulated, thanks to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The complaint for this class action claims that debt collector Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. did not adhere to proper practices when it attempted to collect a debt from the plaintiff Chavez in this case. Specifically, its initial letter did not inform Chavez that he had thirty days to dispute the debt, and in a follow-up telephone message it did not give him the “mini-Miranda” warning.

Ultra Beauty Sign on Brick Building

Would you buy used cosmetics or personal care products? The complaint for this securities class action alleges that Ulta Beauty, Inc. stores “cleaned up” returned products, resealed them, and put them back on the shelves, to be sold to customers as if they were new. The complaint says that the company’s failure to disclose this practice violates the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Surgical Gloves Made with Kraton Cariflex

Kraton Corporation changed the processing of its Cariflex product in Brazil, and according to the complaint for this securities class action, that resulted in problems. The complaint says that the company hid these problems from investors, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Only after several months did it admit that the changes had led certain customers to reject the product because of processing issues with the material. 

MiMedx Logo

When two former employees filed a whistleblower action against MiMedx Group, Inc., the company at first denied their claims and sued them in return. When analysts published reports on the allegations, MiMedx again issued denials and sued them as well.  But the complaint for this securities class action claims that these denials were a continuation of the company’s false or misleading statements, which violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In actuality, it says, the company had engaged in a channel-stuffing scheme and improperly recognized revenues. 

Cemtrex "C" Logo

The complaint for this securities class action sets forth such a variety of allegations of shady behavior against Cemtrex, Inc. that it’s difficult to believe that a company could conceal so much in a single year. The complaint claims that the company’s public statements were false or misleading, or omitted material facts, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among the complaint’s allegations are that the company is secretly paying to promote itself, that the company’s audits have been fake, and that the company’s associations have been shady characters who are associated with other companies that have been delisted or prosecuted. 

Invuity Ad for Lighting Product

Invuity, Inc. makes medical products, but it seems to have had difficulty making money. The complaint for this securities class action claims that the company made false or misleading statements during the class period, anticipating “exponential” growth while knowing that its prospects were limited. The complaint claims that the company’s statements, not admitting to its problems and limitations, were violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Pages