NEW YORK, April 07, 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 EHang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: EH), fuboTV, Inc. (NYSE: FUBO), Jianpu Technology, Inc. (NYSE: JT), and Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX). 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.
Ehang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: EH)
Class Period: December 12, 2019 to February 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021
On February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack Research published a scathing report entitled “EHang: A Stock Promotion Destined to Crash and Burn.” In this report, Wolfpack Research wrote that EHang is “an elaborate stock promotion, built on largely fabricated revenues based on sham sales contracts with a customer [Shanghai Kunxiang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (“Kunxiang”)] who appears to us to be more interested in helping inflate the value of its investment in EH . . . than about buying its products.” Wolfpack Research wrote that it had “gathered extensive evidence” to support its report, “including behind-the-scenes photographs, recorded phone calls, and videos of on-site visits to EH’s various facilities . . . .” Wolfpack Research also noted that “in just 14 months as a publicly traded company, EH’s PR team has put out 50 press releases . . . . However, EH’s constant stream of press releases are easily proven untrue.” Finally, Wolfpack Research wrote that it “obtained Chinese court records which show that EH’s ADRs may already be in serious jeopardy due to legal issues in China.”
On this news, the price of EHang’s ADS fell from its February 12, 2021 close of $124.09 to a February 16, 2021 close of $46.30 per share, a one day drop of $77.79 per share or approximately 62.7%.
The complaint, filed on February 17, 2021, 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 Company’s purported regulatory approvals in Europe and North American for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its relationship with its purported primary customer is a sham; (iii) EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) the Company’s manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; and (v) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Ehang class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/EH
fuboTV, Inc. (NYSE: FUBO)
Class Period: March 23, 2020 to January 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021
The complaint, filed on February 17, 2021, alleges that during the Class Period defendants disseminated false and misleading statements that misrepresented Fubo’s financial health and its operating condition. These misleading statements included representations relating to a variety of Fubo’s business operations and performance metrics, including, among others, Fubo’s ability to grow subscription levels and future profitability, seasonality factors, cost escalations and potentially shrinking addressable market, ability to attract and generate advertising revenue, the Company’s valuation, and its prospects of entering the arena of online sports wagering.
Investors learned the truth gradually through a series of research reports beginning on December 23, 2020. Those reports revealed, among others things, that (i) Fubo’s growth in subscriber and profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge; (ii) Fubo’s offering of products would be subject to cost escalation; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online sports wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo’s data and inventory was not differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve its long-term advertising growth goals; (v) Fubo’s valuation was overstated in light of its total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the acquisition of Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies and internal expertise, and did not expand the Company’s addressable market into sports wagering.
Upon the publication of the research reports, the price of Fubo securities declined 54% from a close of $52.59 on December 23, 2020 to a close of $24.24 on January 4, 2021.
For more information on the fuboTV class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FUBO
Jianpu Technology, Inc. (NYSE: JT)
Class Period: May 29, 2018 to February 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021
On February 16, 2021, Jianpu announced the results of its review into “transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation Business Unit” with third-party business entities. The Company concluded that previously reported revenue and associated expenses had been inflated due to “certain transactions [that] involved third-party agents (including both upstream agents and downstream suppliers) with undisclosed relationships and some transactions [that] lacked business substance.” Jianpu stated that it “anticipates the total amount of overstated revenue for the fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to be approximately, RMB 90 million and RMB 164 million, respectively, representing approximately 4.5% and 10.1% of the total revenue previously reported.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.60, or 13%, to close at $3.94 per share on February 16, 2021.
The complaint, filed on February 17, 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 certain of the Company’s transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation Business Unit involved undisclosed relationships or lacked business substance; (2) that, as a result, Jianpu’s revenue and costs and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019 were overstated; (3) that there were material weaknesses in Jianpu’s internal control over financial reporting; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s fiscal 2018 Form 20-F was reasonably likely to be restated; and (5) 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 Jianpu Technology class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/JT
Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX)
Class Period: November 9, 2020 to February 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2021
On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP (“RSM”), resigned “as a result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020” related to the Company’s gift card business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material weakness related to Ebix’s failure to design controls “over the gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to prevent or detect a material misstatement.” In addition, Ebix and RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix’s outside legal counsel in December 2020.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell as much as $20.24, or approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021.
The complaint, filed on February 22, 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 there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix’s gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in Company’s internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company’s independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix’s outside legal counsel; 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 Ebix class action case go to: https://bespc.com/cases/EBIX
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