NEW YORK, Sept. 26, 2022 (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 TuSimple Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSP), Kohl’s Corporation (NYSE: KSS), Sema4 Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: SMFR, SMFRW), and Medtronic PLC (NYSE: MDT). 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.
TuSimple Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSP)
Class Period: April 15, 2021 – August 1, 2022 or pursuant to the Company’s April 15, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 31, 2022
TuSimple is the subject of a Wall Street Journal article published on August 1, 2022. The article alleges that one of the Company’s autonomously driven trucks left its lane of travel without warning before striking a cement barricade. The article states that the accident “underscores concerns that the autonomous-trucking company is risking safety on public roads in a rush to deliver driverless trucks to market.” Although the Company attempted to blame human error, the Journal points out that “it was the autonomous-driving system that turned the wheel and that blaming the entire accident on human error is misleading.” The article also reveals that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has launched a “safety compliance investigation.”
Based on this news, shares of TuSimple fell $0.97, or 9.7%, during intraday trading to close at $8.99 per share on August 1, 2022.
According to the complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. TuSimple overstated its commitment to safety and concealed significant problems with its technology. The Company rushed testing of its autonomous driving systems to bear its competitors to the market. The Company fostered a corporate culture that ignored safety in favor of ambitious delivery schedules. This culture made accidents during road testing more likely. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about TuSimple, investors suffered damages.
For more information on the TuSimple class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TSP
Kohl’s Corporation (NYSE: KSS)
Class Period: October 20, 2020 – May 19, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 1, 2022
Kohl’s operates as a retail company in the U.S. The Company offers branded apparel, footwear, accessories, beauty, and home products through its stores and website.
In October 2020, Kohl’s announced that it had entered into a new strategic framework to “drive top-line growth,” “expand operating margin,” and become “the most trusted retailer of choice for the active and casual lifestyle” (the “Strategic Plan”). Specifically, the Strategic Plan featured “new initiatives to position the company for long-term success,” including “be[ing] the destination for active, casual and beauty for the entire family from the most trusted brands, always delivering quality and discovery,” “lead[ing] with loyalty and value through a best-in-class rewards program,” and “offer[ing] a differentiated omnichannel experience that is easy and inviting, no matter how customers want to shop.” In addition, Kohl’s announced that the Company was “focused on increasing profitability with a goal of expanding its operating margin to 7% to 8%.” In announcing the Strategic Plan, the Company touted its purportedly strong foundation of customers, industry-leading loyalty and charge card programs, high volume of stores, and large and growing digital business.
On May 19, 2022, Kohl’s issued a press release announcing the Company’s fiscal Q1 2022 results, reporting, among other items, a net sales figure expected to grow up to only 1% (compared to Wall Street consensus growth of 1.94%), earnings per share of $0.11 (missing estimates by $0.59), a revenue figure which only barely edged expectations, and the Company’s decision to cut its full year earnings forecast. These results were at odds with the Defendants’ representations regarding the successful execution of the Company’s Strategic Plan, which was purportedly poised to drive top-line growth and position the Company for long-term success. Further, the press release quoted Kohl’s Chief Executive Officer Defendant Michelle Gass, who stated, in relevant part, “[t]he year has started out below our expectations. Following a strong start to the quarter with positive low-single digits comps through late March, sales considerably weakened in April as we encountered macro headwinds related to lapping last year’s stimulus and an inflationary consumer environment.”
Then, on May 20, 2022, Macellum Advisors GP, LLC (“Macellum”), “a long-term holder of nearly 5% of the outstanding common shares of Kohl’s”, issued a statement addressing “[t]his quarter’s extremely disappointing results,” which Macellum attributed to a “flawed strategic plan and an inability to execute.” Macellum also stated that “the current Board appears to have withheld material information from shareholders about the state of Kohl’s in the lead-up to this year’s pivotal annual meeting,” which “suggests to us a clear breach of fiduciary duty.”
On this news, Kohl’s stock price fell $5.84 per share, or 12.97%, to close at $39.20 per share on May 20, 2022.
The Complaint 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) Kohl’s Strategic Plan was not well tailored to achieving the Company’s stated goals; (ii) the Defendants had likewise overstated the Company’s success in executing its Strategic Plan; (iii) Kohl’s had deficient disclosure controls and procedures, internal control over financial reporting, and corporate governance mechanisms; (iv) as a result, the Company’s Board was able to and did withhold material information from shareholders about the state of Kohl’s in the lead-up to the Company’s annual meeting; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Kohl’s financial condition and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Kohl’s class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/KSS
Sema4 Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: SMFR)
Class Period: March 14, 2022 – August 15, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 7, 2022
On August 15, 2022, after the market closed, Sema4 announced changes to its research and development leadership team, including that Defendant Schadt was stepping down from his roles as President and Chief R&D Officer. The Company also disclosed that it was eliminating approximately 13% of its workforce as part of a series of restructuring and corporate realignments. During the related conference call, Sema4 revealed that it had “reversed $30.1 million of revenue this quarter related to prior periods,” in connection with negotiations with “one of [Sema4’s] larger commercial payors regarding the potential recoupment of payments for Sema4 carrier screening services rendered from 2018 to early 2022.”
On this news, Sema4’s stock fell $0.80, or 33.3%, to close at $1.60 per share on August 16, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action 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 a significant risk that Sema4 would reverse a material amount of previously recognized revenue that it could not recoup from third party payors; (2) that the Company was experiencing declining selling prices for its reproductive health segment; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Sema4’s financial results would be adversely affected; 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 Sema4 class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/SMFR
Medtronic PLC (NYSE: MDT)
Class Period: June 8, 2019 – May 25, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 7, 2022
Medtronic is a medical device company. Among its products is the MiniMed insulin pump system for the treatment of diabetes. The systems include the MiniMed 600 series models and the MiniMed 780G model. Medtronic is currently seeking regulatory approval for the MiniMed 780G model, which uses an advanced hybrid closed loop system. During the Class Period, Medtronic repeatedly assured investors that the MiniMed 780G model was “on track” for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and would provide Medtronic with the edge it needed to close a growing gap with its competitors in the diabetes market.
Medtronic made these representations despite known issues with the MiniMed 600 series models. Indeed, in November 2019, the company issued a warning that certain MiniMed 600 series insulin pumps might have damaged pump retainer rings, which could cause the system to release too much insulin, and instructed customers with damaged rings to contact the company for replacements. On February 7, 2020, the FDA classified Medtronic’s November 2019 notification as a Class I recall—the most serious type of recall.
Problems with the MiniMed 600 series mushroomed in October 2021, when the company expanded its recall to all MiniMed model 630G and 670G insulin pump systems—whether or not any retainer ring damage was actually visible. Despite these serious issues with the 600 series, Medtronic assured investors that they expected the MiniMed 780G “to drive growth.” Consistent with these optimistic statements, Medtronic again assured investors that FDA approval of the MiniMed 780G was imminent.
Investors began to learn the truth about the company’s MiniMed operations on December 15, 2021, when Medtronic revealed that it had received a warning letter from the FDA regarding its Northridge, California facility (the “Warning Letter”). The Warning Letter followed an FDA inspection relating to the company’s MiniMed 600 series recall, and focused on “the inadequacy of specific medical device quality system requirements . . . in the areas of risk assessment, corrective and preventive action, complaint handling, device recalls, and reporting of adverse events.”
As a result of the Warning Letter—including the resulting uncertainty about FDA approval of the MiniMed 780G and other products in Medtronic’s diabetes operating unit, the Diabetes Group, Medtronic lowered its guidance for its Diabetes Group, now projecting that Diabetes Group product revenues would decline in the mid-single digit range for fiscal year 2022. On this news, the price of Medtronic common stock declined $6.75 per share, or approximately 6%, from a close of $111.69 per share on December 14, 2021, to close at $104.94 per share on December 15, 2021.
The financial fallout from the FDA’s findings continued to surface on May 26, 2022, when Medtronic reported its financial results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2022, and provided guidance for fiscal year 2023. Notably, Medtronic disclosed that as a result of the company’s need to improve its quality control system and its expectation that the MiniMed 780G model—which Defendants had repeatedly identified as crucial to future growth—would not be approved in 2023, the company expected revenues from its Diabetes Group to decline between 6% and 7% in fiscal year 2023. On this news, the price of Medtronic common stock fell $6.10 per share, or nearly 6%, from a close of $105.54 per share on May 25, 2022, to close at $99.44 per share on May 26, 2022.
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 and operations by failing to disclose that: (1) Medtronic’s product quality control systems were inadequate; (2) Medtronic had failed to comply with numerous regulations regarding risk assessment, corrective and preventive action, complaint handling, device recalls, and reporting of adverse events; (3) these failures increased the risk of regulatory investigation and action; (4) as a result of the company’s misconduct, the FDA would delay the approval of additional Medtronic MiniMed devices, including the MiniMed 780G; (5) these delays in product approvals, as well as the company’s need to improve its quality control systems, would negatively affect Medtronic’s financial performance and cause it to fall further behind its competitors; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Medtronic class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/MDT
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.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
