NEW YORK, April 15, 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 Canaan, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN), Gulfport Energy Corporation (NASDAQ: GPOR), PaySign, Inc. (NASDAQ: PAYS), and XP, Inc. (NASDAQ: XP). 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.
Canaan, Inc. (NADSAQ: CAN)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering, which commenced on or about November 20, 2019 (the “IPO” or “Offering”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 4, 2020
Canaan, a company specializing in Blockchain servers and ASIC microprocessor solutions for use in bitcoin mining, completed its initial public offering in November of 2019. Then, on February 20, 2020, an investment analyst operating under the pseudonym Marcus Aurelius published a short report entitled “Canaan Fodder” claiming, among other things, that Canaan was engaged in several undisclosed related-party transactions that lacked economic substance.
For example, the report alleges that just one month before Canaan’s IPO, a tiny Hong Kong company named Grandshores announced that it had agreed to purchase up to $150 Million worth of the company’s equipment in 2020, even though Grandshores’ entire market cap is only $50 million and it reports having only $16 million in cash on hand. Purportedly, the Chairman of Grandshores owns 9.7% of Canaan’s outstanding shares through entities he controls -- yet this relationship is not mentioned anywhere in Canaan’s SEC filings.
The complaint, filed on March 4, 2020, alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the purported “strategic cooperation” was actually a transaction with a related party; (2) the company’s financial health was worse than what was actually reported; (3) the company had recently removed numerous distributors from its website just prior to the IPO, many of which were small or suspicious businesses; and (4) several of the company’s largest Chinese clients in prior years were clients who were not in the Bitcoin mining industry and, thus, would likely not be repeat customers. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Canaan class action go to: https://bespc.com/can
Gulfport Energy Corporation (NASDAQ: GPOR)
Class Period: May 3, 2019 and February 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 18, 2020
Gulfport engages in the exploration, development, acquisition, and production of natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids in the U.S.
On February 27, 2020, Gulfport disclosed that its previously issued financial statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, “should no longer be relied upon due to material misstatements.” Gulfport further advised investors that “the Company has reassessed its conclusions regarding its disclosure controls and procedures as of September 30, 2019 in light of the misstatements,” and, “[a]s a result, the Company has determined that a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting existed as of September 30, 2019, and therefore the Company has concluded that its disclosure controls and procedures as of September 30, 2019 were not effective.”
On this news, Gulfport’s stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 8.89%, to close at $0.82 per share on February 28, 2020.
The complaint, filed on March 17, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and operations. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a material weakness existed in Gulfport’s internal control over financial reporting; (ii) accordingly, Gulfport’s disclosure controls and procedures were ineffective; (iii) as a result, Gulfport’s financial statements contained multiple misstatements; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Gulfport class action go to: https://bespc.com/GPOR
PaySign, Inc. (NASDAQ: PAYS)
Class Period: March 12, 2019 to March 31, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 18, 2020
On March 16, 2020, PaySign filed a Form 12b-25, disclosing it was unable to timely file its annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 due to the need for additional time to complete the Company’s financial audit. The Company also stated that it had identified material weaknesses in its internal controls relating to its internal control over financial reporting and its information technology general controls.
On this news, shares of PaySign fell $0.93 per share, or nearly 17%, to close at $4.59 per share on March 16, 2020.
The complaint, filed on March 19, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PaySign’s internal control over financial reporting was not effective; (2) PaySign’s information technology general controls were not effective; and (3) 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.
For more information on the PaySign class action go to: https://bespc.com/PAYS-2
XP, Inc. (NASDAQ: XP)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s December 2019 initial public offering (the “IPO” or “Offering”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 20, 2020
In December 2019, XP held the IPO, offering approximately 83 million Class A common shares to the investing public at $27.00 per share.By the commencement of this action, XP’s shares trade significantly below its IPO price.
The complaint, filed on March 21, 2020, alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) XP engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) XP failed to disclose its common and large system failures and connected losses; (3) XP’s aggressive Independent Financial Agent strategy was and is tenuous; (4) XP had material weaknesses; (5) XP fired its previous accounting firm due that firm finding and disclosing material weaknesses; and (6) as a result, defendants’ statements about XP’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the XP class action go to: https://bespc.com/XP
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.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com