NEW YORK, Oct. 21, 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 Coty, Inc. (NYSE: COTY), Harborside, Inc. (Other OTC: HBORF), YayYo, Inc. (Other OTC: YAYO), and LexinFintech Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX). 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.
Coty, Inc. (NYSE: COTY)
Class Period: October 3, 2016 to May 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 3, 2020
Coty is one of the world’s largest beauty companies. The Company operates three divisions: Coty Consumer Beauty (“Consumer Beauty”) which focuses on color cosmetics, retail hair coloring and styling products, body care and mass fragrances sold primarily in the mass retail channels; Coty Luxury (“Coty Luxury”) which focuses on prestige fragrances and skincare brands; and Coty Professional Beauty (“Coty Professional”) which focuses on servicing nail salon owners and professionals in both hair and nail.
On the first day of the Class Period, October 3, 2016, Coty issued a press release announcing the completion of its blockbuster merger with The Proctor & Gamble Company’s fine fragrance, color cosmetics, salon professional and hair color and certain styling businesses (“P&G Specialty Beauty Business”) for $12.5 billion to scale up its beauty business. In the press release, defendant Becht, Chairman of Coty’s Board of Directors, confirmed that “…we now have a much improved team, structure and culture to make the vision of this merger a reality.”
On July 1, 2019, Coty announced the write down of about $3 billion in value of brands acquired from P&G as part of a four-year restructuring plan, confirming that the P&G Specialty Beauty Business had been overvalued.
On this news, Coty’s stock price dropped $1.94, or over 14%, from an opening price of $13.53 per share on July 1, 2019 to a closing price of $11.59 per share.
On November 18, 2019, Coty announced another beauty brand acquisition – a 51% majority stake in Kylie Cosmetics for $600 million in order to “build and further develop Kylie’s existing beauty business,” which “realized an estimated $177M net revenues for the trailing twelve months (TTM).” Kylie Jenner was described “as the youngest-ever self-made billionaire on the cover of Forbes Self-Made Billionaire issue in August 2018.”
But then, on May 29, 2020, Forbes reported that Kylie Jenner “has been inflating the size and success of her business. For years.” – revealing that defendants had overvalued yet another acquisition. On this news, Coty’s stock price fell $0.56, or over 13%, from a close of $4.19 on May 28, 2020 to a close of $3.63 per share on May 29, 2020.
The complaint, filed on September 4, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Coty’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (1) that despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) that as a result, Coty had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (3) that Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands that it acquired from P&G, including an adequate supply chain; (4) that, as a result of its inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not successfully integrating the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and not delivering synergies from the acquisition; (5) and that, as a result of the foregoing, Coty’s financial statements and defendants’ statements about Coty’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Coty class action go to: https://bespc.com/COTY
Harborside, Inc. (Other OTC: HBORF)
Class Period: July 2, 2019 to August 12, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 9, 2020
On May 29, 2020, the Company issued a press release entitled “Harborside Inc. Announces Intent to Restate Certain Historical Financial Statements and Delay in Filing Annual Financial Statements and MD&A” regarding the newly announced needed financial restatements and the suspension of trading of its Canadian shares.
On this news, shares of Harborside fell 2% per share over the next two trading days to close at $0.45 per share on June 2, 2020.
On June 22, 2020, Harborside issued a press release entitled “Harborside Inc. Provides Update to Management Cease Trade Order and Cease Trade Order” regarding its delayed restatements and the continued suspension of trading of its Canadian shares.
On this news, shares of Harborside fell 12% per share over the rest of the trading day and the next full trading day to close at $0.45 per share on June 23, 2020.
On June 30, 2020 issued a press release entitled “Harborside Inc. Provides Update on MCTO and Financial Statement Filings” regarding its delayed restatements and the continued suspension of trading of its Canadian shares.
On this news, shares of Harborside fell 7% per share, to close at $0.49 per share on July 1, 2020.
On July 10, 2020 issued a press release entitled “Harborside lnc. Provides Update on Financial Statement Filings” regarding its delayed restatements and the continued suspension of trading of Its Canadian shares.
On this news, shares of Harborside fell 13% per share, to close at $0.46 per share on July 13, 2020.
On August 12, 2020, Harborside filed with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities its Unaudited Restated Condensed Interim Consolidated Financial Statements for the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2019 and 2018.
On this news, shares of Harborside fell over 5%, to close at $0.67 per share on August 13, 2020.
The complaint, filed on September 9, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Harborside had undisclosed material weaknesses and insufficient financial controls; (2) Harborside’s previously issued financial statements were false and unreliable; (3) Harborside’s earlier reported financial statements would need restatement; (4) as a result of the foregoing and subsequent reporting delays, Harborside’s Canadian stock trading would be suspended; (5) Harborside downplayed the negative impacts of errors and delays regarding its financial statements; and (6) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Harborside class action go to: https://bespc.com/HSDEF
YayYo, Inc. (Other OTC: YAYO)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement, as amended, issued in connection with YayYo’s November 2019 IPO (the “Registration Statement”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 9, 2020
In November 2019, YayYo held its IPO, issuing approximately 2,625,000 shares to the investing public at $4.00 per share, pursuant to the Registration Statement.
By the commencement of this action, the Company’s shares trade significantly below the IPO price.
The complaint, filed on September 9, 2020, alleges that the Registration Statement featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendant El-Batrawi continued to exercise supervision, authority, and control over YayYo, and was intimately involved, on a day-to-day basis, with the business, operations, and finances of the Company, including assisting the underwriter defendants in marketing YayYo’s IPO; (2) defendant El-Batrawi never sold the 12,525,000 “Private Shares” and continued to own a controlling interest in YayYo despite the NASDAQ’s insistence that he retain less than a 10% equity ownership interest in connection with the listing agreement; (3) defendants promised certain creditors of YayYo that in exchange to their agreeing to purchase shares in the IPO – in order to permit the underwriter defendants to close the IPO – YayYo would repurchase those shares after the IPO; (4) defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased by creditors of YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds: (5) YayYo owed its former President, CEO, and Director a half a million dollars at the time of the IPO; (6) YayYo owed SRAX, Inc. (formerly Social Reality, Inc.) $426,286 in unpaid social media costs, most of which was more than a year overdue as payment had been delayed while YayYo attempted to complete its IPO; and (7) as a result, defendants’ statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the YayYo class action go to: https://bespc.com/YAYO
LexinFintech, Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX)
Class Period: December 21, 2017 to August 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 9, 2020
On August 25, 2020, Grizzly Research published a report describing, among other things, how the Company: (i) reports artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (ii) has a business model that exposes shareholders to enormous losses; (iii) was still conducting direct peer to peer lending despite claiming otherwise, (iv) lacked internal controls; and (v) conducted undisclosed related party transactions.
On this news, shares of LexinFintech stock fell $0.47 per share or 5.52% to close at $8.04 per share on August 25, 2020
The complaint, filed on September 9, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LexinFintech reported artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (2) the Company’s business model exposes shareholders to enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans; (3) the Company exaggerated its user base; (4) the Company was facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the LexinFintech class action go to: https://bespc.com/LX
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.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com