Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against HDFC Bank, Fennec, Portland General Electric, and Coty and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
NEW YORK, Sept. 09, 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 HDFC Bank Limited (NYSE: HDB), Fennec Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: FENC), Portland General Electric Company (“PGE”) (NYSE: POR), and Coty, Inc. (NYSE: COTY). 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.
HDFC Bank Limited (NYSE: HDB)
Class Period: July 31, 2019 to July 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020
HDFC Bank was founded in 1994 and is based in Mumbai, India. The Bank provides various banking and financial services to individuals and businesses in India, Bahrain, Hong Kong, and Dubai.
HDFC Bank operates in Treasury, Retail Banking, Wholesale Banking, Other Banking Business, and Unallocated segments, offering, among other services, various types of loans to millions of its retail borrowers, including personal and vehicle financing loans.
Revenues generated from HDFC Bank’s auto and commercial vehicle loans are reported as part of the Bank’s Retail Banking segment.
On July 13, 2020, The Economic Times published an article titled “HDFC Bank probes lending practices at vehicle unit.” That article reported that HDFC Bank had “conducted a probe into allegations of improper lending practices and conflicts of interests in its vehicle-financing operations involving the unit’s former head.”
On this news, HDFC Bank’s American Depositary Share (“ADS”) price fell $1.37 per share, or 2.83%, to close at $47.02 per share on July 13, 2020
The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Bank’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HDFC Bank had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Bank maintained improper lending practices in its vehicle-financing operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from the Bank’s vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Bank’s financial condition and reputation; and (v) as a result, the Bank’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Class Period: February 11, 2020 to August 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020
Fennec is a biopharmaceutical company that purportedly focuses on the development of PEDMARK, a sodium thiosulfate anhydrous injection, for the prevention of platinum-induced ototoxicity in pediatric cancer patients.
On August 11, 2020, Fennec disclosed that it had received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding the Company’s New Drug Application for PEDMARK. According to the CRL, “after recent completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility of [Fennec’s] drug product manufacturer, the FDA identified deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of conditions or practices that are required to be resolved prior to the approval of PEDMARK.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.51, or 34%, to close at $6.66 per share on August 11, 2020.
The complaint, filed on September 3, 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 the manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK, the Company’s sole product candidate, did not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) 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.
Portland General Electric Company (“PGE”) (NYSE: POR)
Class Period: April 24, 2020 to August 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020
PGE is an electric utility that engages in the generation, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the state of Oregon. The Company also participates in wholesale markets by purchasing and selling electricity and natural gas to meet the needs of its retail customers.
On August 24, 2020, PGE announced that it had incurred losses of $127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE further stated that “PGE personnel entered into a number of energy trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third quarter, resulting in significant exposure to the Company.” In addition, PGE announced that it had formed a Special Committee “to review the energy trading that led to the losses and the Company’s procedures and controls related to the trading.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.51, or nearly 8%, to close at $38.45 per share on August 24, 2020.
The complaint, filed on September 3, 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 PGE lacked effective internal controls over its energy trading practices; (2) that PGE personnel had entered energy trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; 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 Portland General Electric class action, go to: https://bespc.com/POR
Coty, Inc. (NYSE: COTY)
Class Period: October 3, 2016 to May 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 3, 2020
Coty is one of the world’s largest beauty companies. The Company operates three divisions: Coty Consumer Beauty (“Consumer Beauty”) which focuses on color cosmetics, retail hair coloring and styling products, body care and mass fragrances sold primarily in the mass retail channels; Coty Luxury (“Coty Luxury”) which focuses on prestige fragrances and skincare brands; and Coty Professional Beauty (“Coty Professional”) which focuses on servicing nail salon owners and professionals in both hair and nail.
On the first day of the Class Period, October 3, 2016, Coty issued a press release announcing the completion of its blockbuster merger with The Proctor & Gamble Company’s fine fragrance, color cosmetics, salon professional and hair color and certain styling businesses (“P&G Specialty Beauty Business”) for $12.5 billion to scale up its beauty business. In the press release, defendant Becht, Chairman of Coty’s Board of Directors, confirmed that “…we now have a much improved team, structure and culture to make the vision of this merger a reality.”
On July 1, 2019, Coty announced the write down of about $3 billion in value of brands acquired from P&G as part of a four-year restructuring plan, confirming that the P&G Specialty Beauty Business had been overvalued.
On this news, Coty’s stock price dropped $1.94, or over 14%, from an opening price of $13.53 per share on July 1, 2019 to a closing price of $11.59 per share.
On November 18, 2019, Coty announced another beauty brand acquisition – a 51% majority stake in Kylie Cosmetics for $600 million in order to “build and further develop Kylie’s existing beauty business,” which “realized an estimated $177M net revenues for the trailing twelve months (TTM).” Kylie Jenner was described “as the youngest-ever self-made billionaire on the cover of Forbes Self-Made Billionaire issue in August 2018.”
But then, on May 29, 2020, Forbes reported that Kylie Jenner “has been inflating the size and success of her business. For years.” – revealing that defendants had overvalued yet another acquisition. On this news, Coty’s stock price fell $0.56, or over 13%, from a close of $4.19 on May 28, 2020 to a close of $3.63 per share on May 29, 2020.
The complaint, filed on September 4, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Coty’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (1) that despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) that as a result, Coty had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (3) that Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands that it acquired from P&G, including an adequate supply chain; (4) that, as a result of its inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not successfully integrating the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and not delivering synergies from the acquisition; (5) and that, as a result of the foregoing, Coty’s financial statements and defendants’ statements about Coty’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
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.
