Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Elanco Animal Health, Ryder System, CytomX, and Hamilton Beach Brands and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, May 27, 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 Elanco Animal Health Incorporated (NYSE: ELAN), Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R), CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CTMX), and Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB). 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.

Elanco Animal Health Incorporated (NYSE: ELAN)

Class Period: January 10, 2020 to May 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020

Elanco is an animal health company that develops, manufactures, and markets products for companion and food animals. Its four primary categories are: Companion Animal Disease Prevention (“CA Disease Prevention”), which offers parasiticides that protect pets from worms, fleas and ticks; Companion Animal Therapeutics (“CA Therapeutics”), which offers treatments for pain, osteoarthritis, otitis, as well as cardiovascular and dermatology indications; Food Animal Future Protein & Health (“FA Future Protein & Health”), which includes vaccines, nutritional enzymes, and antibiotics; and Food Animal Ruminants & Swine (“FA Ruminants & Swine”), which develops food animal products used extensively in ruminant and swine production.

On May 7, 2020, Elanco announced its first quarter 2020 financial results, reporting revenue of $657.7 million and earnings per share of -$0.12, reflecting “a reduction of approximately $60 million in channel inventory.” The Company’s Chief Executive Officer attributed the disappointing results to “distributor performance,” among other things, and stated that Elanco planned “to tighten [its] approach across many facets of [its] distributor relationships.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.05, or over 13%, to close at $19.88 per share on May 7, 2020.

The complaint, filed on May 20, 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, after consolidating its distributors from eight to four, the Company increased the amount of inventory, including companion animal products, held by each distributor; (2) that Elanco’s distributors were not experiencing sufficient demand to sell through the inventory; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s revenue was reasonably likely to decline; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Elanco would reduce its channel inventory with respect to companion animal products; 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 Elanco class action go to: https://bespc.com/ELAN

Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R)

Class Period: July 23, 2015 to February 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020

On July 30, 2019, the Company drastically reduced its full-year 2019 earnings forecast and management indicated that the majority of the lowered guidance reflected Ryder’s weaker valuations of its tractors.

In response to these disclosures, Ryder’s stock price declined 10%, from $59.32 per share to $53.38 per share.

On October 29, 2019, the Company revealed that “management concluded that our residual value estimates likely exceeded the expected future values that would be realized upon the sale of power vehicles in our fleet.” As a result, the Company significantly lowered the residual values for all its vehicles and incurred $177 million in additional depreciation expense in the third quarter of 2019.

In response to these disclosures, Ryder’s stock price declined more than 12% over two trading days, from $55.12 per share to $48.44 per share.

Then, on February 13, 2020, the Company reported that, as a result of the significant reductions to the residual value of its fleet, it had incurred a total of $357 million in depreciation expense for 2019 plus a loss of approximately $58 million on the sale of used vehicles. The Company also announced that, for 2020, it expected to incur another $275 million in depreciation expense on its fleet due to the reductions in residual value plus an additional $20 million estimated loss on used vehicle sales. In response to these disclosures, Ryder’s stock price declined 20% over two trading days, from $50.19 per share to $40.12 per share.

The complaint, filed on May 20, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants misrepresented Ryder’s true financial condition by overstating the residual value of its trucking fleet, which allowed the Company to record smaller depreciation expense on those assets each year, and artificially inflated Ryder’s earnings. Defendants represented to investors that its financial results “benefited from lower depreciation associated with increased residual values” and that the Company had been “conservative” in establishing the residual values of its vehicles. While Ryder kept increasing the expected residual value of its trucking fleet, the actual amount Ryder was receiving from sales of its used trucks had started to decrease beginning in 2015. Nevertheless, when asked about the residual values of the Company’s trucks during Ryder’s July 27, 2016 earnings call, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Robert Sanchez stated that “I wouldn’t envision an increase or decrease in residual values out over the next four, five years.” These and similar statements during the Class Period were false and misleading because Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the residual values that Ryder assigned to its trucking fleet were grossly overstated, which had the effect of allowing the Company to record smaller depreciation expenses and artificially inflated Ryder’s earnings. As a result of these misrepresentations, shares of Ryder common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

For more information on the Ryder class action go to: https://bespc.com/R

CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CTMX)

Class Period: May 17, 2018 to May 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020

CytomX operates as an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company in the U.S. The Company develops a novel class of investigational antibody therapeutics based on its Probody technology platform for the treatment of cancer. CytomX’s lead product candidates in the clinical stage include, among others, CX-072 and CX-2009.

CytomX has been evaluating CX-072 in its “PROCLAIM” series clinical program for several years. For example, the PROCLAIM-CX-072-001 clinical trial was designed to assess the tolerability and preliminary antitumor activity of multiple doses of CX-072 as a monotherapy or as a combination therapy with ipilimumab (which Bristol-Myers Squibb Company markets under the brand name Yervoy) or vemurafenib (which Roche markets under the brand name Zelboraf) in patients with advanced, unresectable solid tumors or lymphoma. The Company also began conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial called PROCLAIM-CX-072-002, which was initiated in October 2019, and is an open-label, multi-center clinical trial evaluating CX-072 in combination with ipilimumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

Likewise, CytomX had been evaluating CX-2009 under its own “PROCLAIM” brand clinical program. This program includes the PROCLAIM-CX-2009-001 clinical trial, which is a Phase 1/2 trial evaluating the tolerability and preliminary antitumor activity of CX-2009 as a monotherapy, which CytomX initiated in June 2017. This clinical program also proceeded in multiple parts—Parts A and A2, which are monotherapy dose escalation studies; and Part B, which is a Phase 2 expansion study of CX-2009 monotherapy at 7 mg/kg administered every three weeks in up to 40 patients with hormone receptor (ER, PR) positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, which defendants announced in December 2019 based on the tolerability and activity data from Part A and A2 of the study.

On May 13, 2020, CytomX made available abstracts for the Company’s clinical presentations for CX-072 and CX-2009. Results from the PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program showed a response rate of 8.8%, compared to a response rate of 18.5% in patients receiving the combination of CX-072 and ipilimumab. Meanwhile, results from the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program showed “evidence” of clinical activity at doses at least 4 mg/kg 3x/week, but also suggested a significantly higher rate of serious or greater treatment related toxicity to the eyes at dose equivalents at least 8 mg/kg 3x/week.

Following the release of the foregoing data, CytomX’s stock price fell $5.21 per share, or 36.08%, to close at $9.23 per share on May 14, 2020.

The complaint, filed on May 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CytomX had downplayed issues with CX-072’s efficacy observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program; (ii) CytomX had similarly downplayed issues with CX-2009’s efficacy and safety observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the CytomX class action go to: https://bespc.com/CTMX

Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB)

Class Period: February 27, 2020 to May 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 21, 2020

On May 11, 2020, Hamilton announced that it could not timely file its 1Q20 10-Q because of “certain accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at its Mexican subsidiary.”  Hamilton further stated that its “Audit Review Committee has commenced an internal investigation” regarding “the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary.”

Following these disclosures, Hamilton’s stock price fell $1.03 per share, or 8.99%, to close at $10.43 per share on May 11, 2020.

The complaint, filed on May 26, 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 Hamilton’s business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries; (ii) consequently, the Company’s accounting included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results, particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at an increased risk of delaying the filing of its periodic reports with the SEC; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Hamilton Beach Brands class action go to: https://bespc.com/HBB

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