Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against World Wrestling Entertainment, NMC Health, Funko, and Allakos and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
The problems with WWEs relationship with the Saudis began to be revealed in a series of partial disclosures.
NEW YORK, March 25, 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 World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: WWE), NMC Health PLC (Other OTC: NMHLY), Funko, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNKO), and Allakos, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALLK). 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.
World Wresting Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: WWE)
Class Period: Stockholders who purchased Class A common stock between February 7, 2019 and February 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 5, 2020
WWE is an integrated media and entertainment company primarily known for its scripted professional wrestling shows. In recent years, WWE has entered into important strategic relationships with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including a multi-year television distribution rights agreement with the Orbit Showcase Network (“OSN”), a Saudi-controlled direct broadcast satellite provider, and a 10-year partnership with the Saudi General Sports Authority to host live events in Saudi Arabia.
The problems with WWE’s relationship with the Saudis began to be revealed in a series of partial disclosures.
On April 25, 2019, the Company disclosed disappointing financial results and fiscal guidance, which several analysts connected to potential hiccups in the Company’s dealings with the Saudis.
On October 31, 2019, in connection with the release of the Company’s third quarter 2019 financial results, WWE revealed significant underperformance across key metrics and revealed that the media rights deal had been indefinitely delayed. Around this same time, it was reported that the Saudi government had withheld tens of millions of dollars in payments owed to WWE. The dispute continued to escalate, culminating in a decision by WWE to cut a broadcasting feed of a live event held in the country. In retaliation, the Saudi government temporarily refused to allow several WWE wrestlers to leave the country in what was later described as akin to a “hostage situation” under the pretense of mechanical airplane issues.
Then, on January 30, 2020, WWE revealed that two of its longest serving senior executives – defendants George A. Barrios and Michelle D. Wilson – had been ousted. Shortly thereafter, on February 6, 2020, WWE again disclosed disappointing financial performance due to its failure to secure a favorable broadcasting deal with the Saudis and revealed that the Saudi media rights deal would not be included in the Company’s financial forecasting.
As a result of these disclosures, the price of WWE Class A common stock plummeted from a Class Period high of more than $100 per share to as low as $40.24 per share on February 6, 2020, representing a 60% share price decline.
The complaint, filed on March 6, 2020, alleges that during the Class Period defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding WWE’s business and operations. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that WWE was experiencing rising tension with the Saudi government and a breakdown in negotiations over a renewed broadcasting distribution deal; that the Saudi government and its affiliates had failed to make millions of dollars in payments owed to WWE pursuant to existing contractual commitments between the parties; that OSN had terminated the broadcast of WWE programming in the first quarter of 2019, despite a contractual obligation to continue such broadcasts, and that this cancellation was symptomatic of a deterioration in the business relationship between the parties; that OSN had rebuffed efforts to renew a distribution rights agreement on terms acceptable to WWE; and that WWE did not have the ability to expand its operations in the Middle East or within Saudi Arabia as had been represented to investors.
For more information on the WWE class action go to: https://bespc.com/WWE
NMC Health PLC (Other OTC: NMHLY)
Class Period: March 13, 2016 to March 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 11, 2020
On December 17, 2019, Muddy Waters Capital LLC published a report explaining that NMC had misled investors and failed to disclose: (i) its lack of internal controls; (ii) (de facto) related party transactions; (iii) its true debt burden; (iv) its true cash-on-hand and asset values; and (v) its use of reverse factoring.
On this news, NMC’s share price fell $11.68, per share or over 33.6%, to close at $23.00 per share on December 17, 2019, from its December 16, 2019 close at $34.68.
Then, on March 10, 2020, the Financial Times published the article titled “NMC Health Discovers Almost $3bn of Debt Hidden from Its Board” which continued to disclose NMC’s lack of internal controls and under reporting of debt reporting. Further on March 10, 2020, Bloomberg published the article titled “Abu Dhabi Insurer Steps In to Help NMC Health Pay Salaries” reporting that an insurer was assisting to pay NMC’s expenses.
On this news, NMC’s share price fell $3.28 per share, or almost 64%, to close at $1.85 per share on March 10, 2020.
The complaint, filed on March 10, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked effective internal controls and risk management; (2) the Company engaged in undisclosed and extensive related party and de facto related party transactions; (3) NMC’s debts were significantly understated and obfuscated; (4) NMC’s cash-on-hand figures were overstated; (5) NMC’s principal shareholders were not accurately reporting or accounting their interests or stakes in the Company; (6) NMC did not review or know their principal shareholders interests or stakes in the Company; (7) consequently, the Company was not enforcing its Relationship Agreement with the principal shareholders; and (8) 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the NMC Health class action go to: https://bespc.com/NMHLY
Funko, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNKO)
Class Period: October 31, 2019 to March 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 11, 2020
On February 5, 2020, Funko issued a press release announcing preliminary fourth quarter 2019 financial results. Therein, Funko stated that “[n]et sales are expected to be approximately $214 million, a decrease of 8% compared to $233 million in the fourth quarter of 2018.” The Company also disclosed a $16.8 million write down to “dispose of slower moving inventory to increase operational capacity.”
On this news, Funko’s share price fell $6.20, or 40%, to close at $9.29 per share on February 6, 2020.
On March 5, 2020, after the market closed, Funko issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2019 financial results. Therein, Funko affirmed that net sales for fourth quarter had decreased 4% year-over-year to $213.6 million due to, among other things, “softness at retail during the holiday season which led to a decrease in orders.”
On this news, Funko’s share price fell $0.32, or over 4%, to close at $6.92 on March 6, 2020.
The complaint, filed on March 11, 2020, 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 Funko was experiencing lower than expected sales; (2) that, as a result, Funko was reasonably likely to incur a write down for slower moving inventory; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the FUNKO class action go to: https://bespc.com/FNKO-2
Allakos, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALLK)
Class Period: August 5, 2019 and December 17, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 11, 2020
Allakos is developing AK002 for the treatment of eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic gastroenteritis, urticaria, indolent systemic mastocytosis, and severe allergic conjunctivitis.
On August 5, 2019, Allakos issued a press release announcing that AK002 had met all prespecified primary and secondary endpoints in its Phase 2 clinical trial (the “ENIGMA Trial”).
Then, on December 18, 2019, Seligman Research (“Seligman”) published a report characterizing Allakos as “A Suspect Biotech with a Phase 2 Farce, Incredulous Trial Investigators, and Warning Signs of Potential Fraud.” Among a litany of other issues, the Seligman report accused Allakos of having “buried the results for the two AK001 studies it conducted, but our research indicates a debacle”; having “a checkered history of conducting small, low-credibility trials, marked by a striking level of what we consider to be discrepancies, omissions, cherry-picking, and other red flags”; and engaging in “[f]lagrant nepotism in key clinical roles.”
On this news, Allakos’s stock price fell $13.25 per share, or 10%, to close at $119.28 on December 18, 2019.
The complaint, filed on March 10, 2020, alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s ENIGMA Trial for its flagship drug, AK002, was poorly designed; (2) Allakos cherrypicked timeframes to engineer results for the ENIGMA trial; (3) Allakos used superficial endpoints in the ENIGMA Trial relative to FDA guidance; (4) Allakos misrepresented the number of adverse incidents that occurred during the ENIGMA Trial; (5) the ENIGMA Trial was not well-controlled; (6) Allakos failed to report key data from the ENIGMA Trial; and (7) as a result, defendants’ statements about Allakos’ 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 Allakos class action go to: https://bespc.com/ALLK
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.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com
