NEW YORK, March 10, 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 Ontrak, Inc. (NASDAQ: OTRK), Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS), Resources Corporation (NYSE: RRC), and Workhorse Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: WKHS). 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.
Ontrak, Inc. (NASDAQ: OTRK)
Class Period: November 5, 2020 to February 26, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announcing preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year 2020. Therein, the Company stated that its largest customer had terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. The Company stated that this customer “evaluated Ontrak on a provider basis” and “[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak’s] performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or medical cost savings.” The Company also stated that “the coaching model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $27.32, or more than 46%, to close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021.
The complaint, filed on March 3, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Ontrak’s largest customer evaluated the Company on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak’s performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings; (2) that, as a result, Ontrak’s largest customer did not find the Company’s program to be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (3) that, because this customer accounted for a significant portion of the Company’s revenue, the loss of the customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak’s financial results; 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 Ontrak class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/OTRK
Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS)
Class Period: May 4, 2020 to February 23, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC (“Spruce Point”) published a research report, alleging, among other things that “Leidos is potentially covering up at least $100m of fictitious sales, mischaracterizing $355 - $367m of international revenue.” The report also alleged that the Company was “concealing numerous product defects from investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems at airports and borders.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $2.58, or 2.4%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021.
On February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company reported $89 million revenue related to the SD&A businesses for the fourth quarter, meaning that after two full quarters, the acquisition generated only $163 million in sales (or $326 million annualized), falling well short of projected $500 million sales. The Company expected cash flow of $850 million, well below analyst estimates of $1.083 billion.
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $10.29, or 9.91%, to close at $93.51 per share on February 23, 2021.
On February 24, 2021, Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos had “materially expanded” the risk disclosures in its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2020. Spruce Point tweeted: “We believe it is validating all the major points of our report.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $3.13, or 3.3%, to close at $90.38 per share on February 24, 2021.
The complaint, filed on March 4, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the purported benefits of the Company’s acquisition of L3Harris’ Security Detection & Automation businesses were significantly overstated; (2) that Leidos’ products suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial results were significantly overstated; 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 Leidos class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LDOS
Range Resources Corporation (NYSE: RRC)
Class Period: April 29, 2016 to February 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
Range Resources operates as an independent natural gas, natural gas liquids (“NGLs”), and oil company in the U.S. The Company and its subsidiary, Range Resources – Appalachia, LLC, engage in the exploration, development, and acquisition of natural gas and oil properties in, among other U.S. regions, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. As of December 31, 2019, the Company purportedly owned and operated 1,272 net producing wells in the Appalachian region, including Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (the “DEP”) enforces the regulations governing the correct designation of a well’s status.
On February 10, 2021, the DEP issued a press release announcing that Range Resources had paid a $294,000 civil penalty to the agency on January 8, 2021 for violating the 2012 Oil and Gas Act. The DEP had begun investigating the Company after the agency found conflicting and inaccurate information on the status of a Company well in Fayette County, Pennsylvania—specifically concerning whether the well in question was correctly designated as inactive for the purposes of DEP regulation. After subpoenaing Range Resources for information on other wells the Company had requested to designate as inactive, the DEP found that “between Tuesday, July 16, 2013, and Monday, October 11, 2017, 42 of Range Resources’ conventional wells were placed on inactive status but were never used again” and that several of the Company’s “wells had not been in use for 12 months at the time Range Resources submitted its applications for inactive status,” even though “after 12 consecutive months of no production, the well would be classified as abandoned and must be plugged.” In addition to paying the DEP’s civil penalty, Range Resources was ultimately required to plug the wells the agency identified as having no viable future use to remediate the issue.
The following day, Range Resources’ stock price fell $0.62 per share, or 6.08%, from its closing price on February 10, 2021, to close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2021.
The complaint, filed on March 4, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Range Resources had improperly designated the status of its wells in Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially decreased the Company’s periodically reported cost estimates to plug and abandon its wells; (iii) the Company was the subject of a DEP investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January 2021 for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the DEP investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the Company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Range Resources class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RRC
Workhorse Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: WKHS)
Class Period: July 7, 2020 to February 23, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021
In 2016, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) announced the USPS Next Generation Delivery Vehicle (“NGDV”) project, a competitive multiyear acquisition process for replacing approximately 165,000 package delivery vehicles. Workhorse was one of the companies vying for the NGDV contract, which was thought to be worth approximately $6.3 billion.
On February 23, 2021, while the market was open, the USPS issued a press release entitled: U.S. Postal Service Awards Contract to Launch MultiBillion-Dollar Modernization of Postal Delivery Vehicle Fleet. The press release announced that Oshkosh Defense – not Workhorse – had won the lucrative NGDV contract.
On this news, securities of Workhorse fell $14.88 per share, or 47%, to close at $16.47 in the regular session on February 23, 2021. The price continued to drop in after-hours trading and opened on February 24, 2021 at a price of $14.07, a fall of over 50% from the previous open, damaging investors.
The complaint, filed on March 8, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was merely hoping that USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, and had no assurance or indication from USPS that this was the case; (2) the Company had concealed the fact that – as revealed by the postmaster general in explaining the ultimate decision not to select an electric vehicle – electrifying the USPS’s entire fleet would be impractical and astronomically expensive; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about Workhorse’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 Workhorse class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/WKHS
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