Artificial Intelligence driven Marketing Communications
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 Zoom Video Communications, Inc. eHealth, Inc. ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. and iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. 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.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
Class Period: April 18, 2019 to April 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2020
On March 22, 2019, Zoom filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with its initial public offering (“IPO”), which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on April 17, 2019 (the “Registration Statement”).
On April 18, 2019, Zoom filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with its IPO, which purported to provide information necessary for investors to consider before partaking in its IPO and purchasing the Company’s newly publicly-issued stock (collectively with the Registration Statement, the “Offering Documents”).
The truth about the deficiencies in Zoom’s software encryption began to come to light as early as July 2019. However, due in large part to the Company’s obfuscation, it was not until the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April of 2020, with businesses and other organizations increasingly relying on Zoom’s video communication software to facilitate remote work activity as governments increasingly implemented shelter-in-place orders, that the truth was more fully laid bare in a series of corrective disclosures. As it became clear through a series of news reports and admissions by the Company that Zoom had significantly overstated the degree to which its video communication software was encrypted, and organizations consequently prohibited their employees from utilizing Zoom for work activities, the Company’s stock price plummeted, to close at $122.94 on April 6, 2020.
The Complaint, filed on April 7, 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) Zoom had inadequate data privacy and security measures; (ii) contrary to Zoom’s assertions, the Company’s video communications service was not end-to-end encrypted; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, users of Zoom’s communications services were at an increased risk of having their personal information accessed by unauthorized parties, including Facebook; (iv) usage of the Company’s video communications services was foreseeably likely to decline when the foregoing facts came to light; and (v) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Zoom class action go to: https://bespc.com/ZM
Class Period: March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2020
On April 8, 2020, analyst Muddy Waters Research issued a report stating that the Company uses “highly aggressive accounting” to mask “a significantly unprofitable business.” Muddy Waters wrote that “[a]fter ASC 606 went into effect,” eHealth’s “member churn . . . skyrocketed,” and concluded “that EHTH is pursuing low quality, lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based on lower churn, pre-growth cohorts.” Further, Muddy Waters charged eHealth’s management with “running a massive stock promotion.”
On this news, eHealth’s stock price fell approximately 12%, to close at $103.20 per share.
The complaint, filed on April 8, 2020, alleges that eHealth misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors: (1) its highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions; (2) its skyrocketing rate of member churn, resulting from eHealth’s pursuit of low quality, lossmaking growth; (3) its reliance on direct response television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable, high churn enrollee; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the eHealth class action go to: https://bespc.com/EHTH
ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.
Class Period: February 26, 2019 to November 4, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 9, 2020
On October 22, 2019, ServiceMaster announced disappointing preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2019. The company stated that it missed revenue and earnings estimates and issued downward adjusted EBITDA guidance. The press release attributed the disappointing results to “termite damage claims arising primarily from Formosan termite activity,” primarily in Mobile, Alabama. The Company further stated that this had been a known issue, having taken mitigating measures “starting in 2018.” Finally, the Company announced the sudden departure of Matthew J. Stevenson in his role as President of Terminix Residential.
On this news the price of ServiceMaster common stock fell $11.44 per share or 20%, closing at $44.70 per share on October 22, 2019.
Then, on November 5, 2019, ServiceMaster released its third quarter 2019 financial results. In this press release discussing the “challenging quarter,” the Company revealed that it had been impacted by certain “legacy risks,” including “termite damage claims.” That same day, defendants held an earnings call with analysts and investors to discuss ServiceMaster’s third quarter 2019 financial results. On the call, defendants informed the market that the increase in termite litigation—which had occurred “[i]n the past few years”—had impacted termite revenue and these issues would continue throughout 2020.
On this news, the price of ServiceMaster shares fell $1.42 per share, or 3.5%, to close at $39.15 per share on November 5, 2019. As the market continued to digest the disappointing news, ServiceMaster shares further declined by $3.41, or 9%, to close at $35.74 per share on November 6, 2019.
All told, following the November 5, 2019 disclosure, ServiceMaster stock suffered a total decline of $4.83 per share from its November 4, 2019 closing price.
The complaint, filed on April 10, 2020, alleges that during the Class Period defendants repeatedly assured the market that ServiceMaster was successfully executing upon initiatives to improve the performance in the Terminix segment. In addition, defendants stated that Terminix would reach a positive “inflection point” and was “definitely the driver” for positive trends expected in the second half of 2019. Unbeknownst to investors, however, in the past several years the Terminix segment had experienced an adverse trend of costly termite litigation, primarily related to Formosan termite activity. This negative trend, which would ultimately impact ServiceMaster’s current and future financial results, was known to defendants throughout the Class Period, as by their own later admission they had been taking mitigating measures since 2018.
For more information on the ServiceMaster class action go to: https://bespc.com/SERV
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc.
Class Period: May 14, 2018 to April 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020
In May of 2018, iAnthus entered into the $50 million 2018 Debenture Agreement with Gotham Green Partners (“GGP”). Among other things, that agreement provided for the withholding and escrow of $5,722,222.22 from the 2018 Debenture proceeds to pay one year’s interest on the 2018 Debentures in the event of iAnthus’ inability to make its interest payments under the agreement.
Then, on September 30, 2019, iAnthus and GGP entered into the Amended Debenture Agreement, which provided an additional $20 million to the Company. The Amended Debenture Agreement included the provision from the 2018 Debenture Agreement that provided for the withholding and escrow of $5,722,222.22 to pay one year’s interest under the Amended Debenture Agreement in the event that iAnthus was unable to make the required interest payments.
Although iAnthus never disclosed that the $5.72 million in escrowed funds was not available to fund iAnthus’ interest payments, on April 6, 2020, iAnthus announced that it had defaulted on $4.4 million in interest payments to GGP under the Amended Debenture Agreement on March 31, 2020.
On this news, shares of iAnthus fell over 61%, closing at $0.179 per share on April 6, 2020.
The complaint, filed on April 15, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s ability to pay its interest obligations under various debenture agreements. As a result of defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
For more information on the iAnthus class action go to: https://bespc.com/ITHUF
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.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.