NEW YORK, Oct. 14, 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 Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NADSAQ: TCMD), Pintec Technology Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: PT), Aurora Cannabis, Inc. (NYSE: ACB), and Credit Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ: CACC). 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.
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCMD)
Class Period: May 7, 2018 to June 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020
Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Tactile is a medical technology company that develops and provides medical devices for the at home treatment of lymphedema and venous insufficiency. A material portion of Tactile’s annual revenues come in the form of reimbursement from public third party payers, such as Medicare, the Veteran’s Administration and certain Medicaid programs in the United States. Accordingly, Tactile’s compliance with applicable federal and state rules and public payer regulations is critical to the Company’s success.
The complaint, filed on September 29, 2020, alleges that defendants violated the securities laws by misrepresenting and concealing that: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5 plus billion market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable market for Tactile’s medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile and/or its employees were engaged in illicit and illegal sales and marketing activities in violation of applicable federal and state rules and public payer regulations; (3) the foregoing illicit and illegal sales and marketing activities increased the risk of a Medicare audit of Tactile’s claims and criminal and civil liability; (4) Tactile’s revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5) defendants’ public statements, including its year-over-year revenue growth and the purported growth drivers, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The truth began to emerge on March 20, 2019, when an amended federal Qui Tam complaint filed against Tactile by one of the Company’s competitors was unsealed, which contained detailed allegations of illegal sales practices on the part of Tactile, causing the Company to submit fraudulent claims to Medicare and the VA.
On this news, the price of Tactile shares fell $4.53 per share over the next two trading days, or 7.5%, from a close price of $60.10 per share on March 20, 2019 to a close price of $55.57 on March 22, 2019.
Then, on February 21, 2020, the court issued an order in the Qui Tam action, denying Tactile’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.
On this news, the price of Tactile shares fell $6.65 per share, or 10.59%, to close at $56.09 on February 24, 2020.
Finally, on June 8, 2020, research firm OSS Research published a scathing report about the Company, accusing Tactile of using a “‘daisy-chaining’ kickback scheme that has resulted in rampant overprescribing and rapid market share gains at the expense of patients, insurers and the public.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $6.05, or 11.69%, from its June 8, 2020 opening price of $51.72 per share to a June 9, 2020 close of $45.67.
For more information on the Tactile class action go to: https://bespc.com/TCMD
Pintec Technology Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: PT)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with the Company’s October 2018 initial public offering (“IPO”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020
In October 2018, Pintec completed its IPO in which it sold more than 3.7 million American Depositary Shares (“ADSs” or “shares”) at $11.88 per share.
On July 30, 2019, the Company filed its fiscal 2018 annual report, in which it restated previously disclosed financial results. Among other things, the Company reported net income of $315,000 for fiscal year 2018, compared to its prior disclosure of $1.068 million net income. Pintec also disclosed that there were material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related to cash advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.53, or more than 13%, over the next several trading sessions, to close at $3.40 per share on August 5, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
On June 15, 2020, Pintec disclosed that it could not timely file its fiscal 2019 annual report and that it anticipated reporting a significant change in results of operations. Specifically, the Company disclosed that it “erroneously recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net basis” for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Moreover, Pintec “announced a net loss of RMB906.5 million in the full year of 2019 due to RMB890.7 million of provision for credit loss in amounts due from a related party, Jimu Group, and RMB200 million of impairment in prepayment for long-term investment.”
By the commencement of the action, Pintec shares were trading as low as $0.92 per share, a nearly 92% decline from the $11.88 per share IPO price.
The complaint, filed September 29, 2020, 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 erroneously recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net basis, rather than a gross basis; (2) that there were material weaknesses in Pintec’s internal control over financial reporting related to cash advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial results for fiscal 2017 and 2018 had been misstated; and (4) 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 Pintec class action go to: https://bespc.com/PT
Aurora Cannabis, Inc. (NYSE: ACB)
Class Period: February 13, 2020 to September 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020
Aurora is headquartered in Edmonton, Canada. The Company produces and distributes medical cannabis products worldwide. It is vertically integrated and horizontally diversified across various segments of the cannabis value chain, including facility engineering and design, cannabis breeding, genetics research, production, derivatives, high value-add product development, home cultivation, wholesale, and retail distribution.
In 2018, the Canadian government approved the Cannabis Act, which legalized and regulated the use of recreational cannabis. In response to the statute’s approval, and the corresponding surge of the recreational cannabis industry, Aurora completed a series of acquisitions to expand the Company’s presence and increase its distribution, including the Company’s all-share purchase of the Canadian medical cannabis producer MedReleaf for total consideration of 3.2 billion Canadian dollars. Like many other companies in the cannabis industry, however, the Company encountered a variety of difficulties as the industry surged, including, inter alia, overproduction, regulatory delays, and competition from the black market.
On February 6, 2020, shortly before the start of the Class Period, Aurora issued a press release announcing, inter alia, a “business transformation plan,” to “better align the business financially with the current realities of the cannabis market in Canada while maintaining a sustainable platform for long-term growth.” Specifically, the press release touted that the plan was “expected to include significant and immediate decreases in selling, general & administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and capital investment plans.”
On September 8, 2020, Aurora issued a press release “announc[ing] an update on its business operations along with certain unaudited preliminary fiscal fourth quarter 2020 results.” Among other things, Aurora announced that the Company expected to record up to $1.8 billion in goodwill impairment charges in the fourth quarter of 2020. The Company also announced that “previously announced fixed asset impairment charges [were] now expected to be up to $90 million, due to production facility rationalization, and a charge of approximately $140 million in the carrying value of certain inventory, predominantly trim, in order to align inventory on hand with near term expectations for demand.”
On this news, Aurora’s stock price fell $0.99 per share, or 11.63%, to close at $7.52 per share on September 8, 2020.
The complaint, filed on October 2, 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) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets, including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the Company’s purported “business transformation plan” and cost reset failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Aurora Cannabis class action go to: https://bespc.com/ACB
Credit Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ: CACC)
Class Period: November 1, 2019 to August 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020
Credit Acceptance provides financing programs, and related products and services to independent and franchised automobile dealers in the United States. These programs are offered through a nationwide network of automobile dealers who benefit from sales of vehicles to consumers who otherwise could not obtain financing, as 95% of Credit Acceptance’s loans are considered subprime. The Company’s tag line is “We change lives!” and the Company asserts its financing programs give consumers “a second chance” in improving their credit scores.
The ugly truth about the Company’s predatory and illegal business practices was revealed on August 28, 2020 when the Massachusetts Attorney General filed the Mass AG Complaint against Credit Acceptance alleging that Credit Acceptance has, for years, been making unfair and deceptive automobile loans to thousands of Massachusetts consumers. In addition, the lawsuit specifically alleges that Credit Acceptance provided its investors with false and/or misleading information regarding the asset-backed securitizations they offered to investors, and that the Company engaged in unfair debt collection practices as well.
In response to the public disclosure of the Mass AG Complaint, Credit Acceptance’s stock price fell $85.36 per share, or over 18%, to close at $374.07 per share over two trading days ending on September 1, 2020.
The complaint, filed on October 2, 2020, alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company was topping off the pools of loans that they packaged and securitized with higher-risk loans; (ii) that Credit Acceptance was making high interest subprime auto loans to borrowers that the Company knew borrowers would be unable to repay; (iii) that the borrowers were subject to hidden finance charges, resulting in loans exceeding the usury rate ceiling mandated by state law; (iv) that Credit Acceptance took excessive and illegal measures to collect debt from defaulted borrowers; (v) that, as a result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and possible penalties from various regulators or lawsuits; and (vi) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and adherence to appropriate laws and regulations were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Credit Acceptance class action go to: https://bespc.com/CACC
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.