NEW YORK, Jan. 13, 2021 (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 Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK), Splunk, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK), Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: NERV), and Covia Holdings Corporation (Other OTC: CVIAQ). 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.
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK)
Class Period: December 21, 2017 to November 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021
Northern Dynasty engages in the exploration of mineral properties in the United States. Its principal mineral property is the Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum project comprising 2,402 mineral claims that covers an area of approximately 417 square miles located in southwest Alaska (the “Pebble Project”).
On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Army released a statement concerning the Pebble Project, stating that it would result in “significant degradation of the environment and would likely result in significant adverse effects on the aquatic system or human environment.” The U.S. Army further found that “the project, as currently proposed, cannot be permitted under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.” The U.S. Army requested that the Company submit a mitigation plan in response to this finding
On this news, Northern Dynasty’s stock price fell $0.55 per share, or 37.9%, to close at $0.90 per share on August 24, 2020.
On November 25, 2020, Northern Dynasty reported that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had rejected its permit applications related to the Pebble Project.
On this news, Northern Dynasty’s stock price fell $0.40 per share, or 50%, to close at $0.40 per share on November 25, 2020.
The complaint, filed on December 4, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company’s permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) 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 Northern Dynasty class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/NAK
Splunk, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK)
Class Period: August 26, 2020 to December 2, 2020
Lead Plaintiff: February 2, 2021
After the markets closed on December 2, 2020, Splunk stunned the market when it announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2021. These results fell short of annual recurring and total revenue estimates, and Splunk reported a loss of 7 cents per share versus an expected gain of 8 cents per share. Splunk’s forecast for the fourth quarter of 2020 was also lower than expected. Numerous analysts have already downgraded the stock and cut their price targets. This includes JPMorgan, who was “blindsided by the magnitude of too many large deals slipping in the final days of October on the heels of an upbeat analyst day 10 days prior to the quarter close,” on October 21, 2020, “at which the company reaffirmed guidance and stated that it was excited about near-term and long-term growth prospects.”
On this news, shares of Splunk common stock plummeted, closing at just $158.03 per share on December 3, 2020, down over 23% from the December 2, 2020 closing price of $205.91 per share.
The complaint, filed on December 4, 2020, alleges that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers in the third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Splunk class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/SPLK
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: NERV)
Class Period: May 5, 2017 to November 30, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021
Minerva’s drug candidate roluperidone, MIN-101, is in development for the treatment of negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. In October 2016, the Company had previously reported positive results from a Phase 2b trial of roluperidone for this treatment, asserting that the “[d]ata show continuous improvement in negative symptoms, stable positive symptoms and extended safety profile.”
On May 29, 2020, Minerva released the results of its Phase 3 clinical trial. The Company announced that the studied “doses were not statistically significantly different from placebo at Week 12 on the primary endpoint . . . or the key secondary endpoint.” In other words, the Phase 3 clinical trial failed.
On this news, the Company’s stock price plummeted from a May 28, 2020 closing price of $13.47 per share to a May 29, 2020 closing price of just $3.71 per share.
On December 1, 2020, Minerva issued a press release revealing that it had “received official meeting minutes from the November 10, 2020 Type C meeting with the” FDA. Minerva disclosed for the first time that the “FDA advised that the Phase 2b study is problematic because it did not use the commercial formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely outside of the United States. In addition, FDA commented that the Phase 3 study does not appear to be capable of supporting substantial evidence of effectiveness . . . .” Indeed, the “FDA cautioned that an NDA submission based on the current data from the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be highly unlikely to be filed and that at a minimum, there would be substantial review issues due to the lack of two adequate and well-controlled trials to support efficacy claims for this indication.”
On this news, Minerva’s stock price fell from its November 30, 2020 closing price of $3.89 per share to a December 1, 2020 closing price of $2.89 per share. This represents a one day drop of approximately 25.7%.
The complaint, filed on December 8, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the truth about the feedback received from the FDA concerning the “end-of-Phase 2” meeting; (ii) the Phase 2b study did not use the commercial formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely outside of the United States; (iii) the failure of the Phase 3 study to meet its primary and key secondary endpoints rendered that study incapable of supporting substantial evidence of effectiveness; (iv) the Company’s plan to use the combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be “highly unlikely” to support the submission of an NDA; (v) reliance on these two trials in the submission of an NDA would lead to “substantial review issues” because the trials were inadequate and not well-controlled; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Minerva class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/NERV
Covia Holdings Corporation (Other OTC: CVIAQ)
Class Period: March 15, 2016 to June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021
On March 22, 2019, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 (the “2018 10-K”) with the SEC, which provided the Company’s fiscal year 2018 financial results and position. In the 2018 10-K, the Company revealed that it had received a subpoena from the SEC investigating certain value-added proppants.
On this news, the Company’s share prices dropped by $0.45, or approximately 6.9%, from closing at $6.50 on March 22, 2019 to close at $6.05 on March 25, 2019, the next trading day.
On November 6, 2019, the Company filed a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019 (the “3Q19 10-Q”) with the SEC, which provided the Company’s third quarter financial results and position. In the 3Q19 10-Q, the Company revealed that, in addition to the March 18, 2019 SEC subpoena, additional information was requested and subpoenaed regarding current and former employees.
On this news, the Company’s share prices dropped by $0.07, or approximately 4.3%, from opening at $1.63 on November 6, 2019 to close at $1.56.
On June 29, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into a comprehensive restructuring agreement with lenders and voluntarily filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code to implement the agreement.
On June 30, 2020, the NYSE delisted the Company, stating in part, “the Company is no longer suitable for listing [. . .] after the Company’s June 29, 2020 disclosure that the Company filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code[.]”
On this news, the Company’s share prices fell $0.18, or 37.5%, from closing at $0.48 on June 29, 2020, suspending trading June 30, 2020, and resuming trading OTC on July 1, 2020 at $0.30.
The complaint, filed on December 10, 2020, alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s proprietary ‘value-added’ proppants were not necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; (2) the Company’s revenues, which were dependent on its proprietary ‘value-added’ proppants, was based on misrepresentations; (3) when Company insiders raised this issue, the defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the issue; and (4) 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 Covia class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CVIAQ
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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