Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against James River, BlueCity, ATI, and View and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
NEW YORK, Aug. 25, 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 James River Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: JRVR), BlueCity Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: BLCT), ATI Physical Therapy, Inc. (NYSE: ATIP), and View, Inc. (NASDAQ: VIEW). 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.
James River Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: JRVR)
Class Period: August 1, 2019 to May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2021
On October 8, 2019, after the market closed, James River disclosed that it had delivered a notice of early cancellation of all policies issued to its largest customer, Rasier LLC.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $11.06, or over 23%, to close at $37.88 per share on October 9, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on May 5, 2021, James River announced its first quarter 2021 financial results, reporting "$170.0 million of unfavorable development in Commercial Auto, primarily driven by a previously canceled account that has been in runoff since 2019." According to Bloomberg, the Company announced that it was seeking to raise $175 million through public equity offering, which was priced at "the sector’s steepest discount ever."
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $12.27, or 26%, to close at $34.23 per share on May 6, 2021, thereby injuring investors further.
The complaint filed 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 that: (1) James River had not adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (2) James River was using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that materially understated the Company’s true exposure to Uber claims; (3) as a result, James River was forced to increase its unfavorable reserves in subsequent quarters even after cancelling the Uber policies; and (4) 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.
On December 2, 2020, BlueCity issues a press release announcing financial and operating results for the third quarter and fiscal year 2020. The press release reported, among other results, that the Company's cost of revenues had increased 41.4% year-over-year, selling and marketing expenses had increased 86.3% year-over-year, technology and development expenses had increased 49.5% year-over-year, and general and administrative expenses had increased 4,349% year-over-year.
On this news, BlueCity’s American Depositary Share (“ADS”) price fell $3.30 per ADS, or 22.84%, to close at $11.15 per ADS on December 2, 2020.
Then on March 23, 2021, BlueCity issued a press release announcing its results for the fourth quarter of 2020. Among other results, BlueCity announced revenue of $42.7 million, missing consensus estimates by $3.92 million.
On this news, BlueCity’s ADS price fell $3.25 per ADS, or 26.71%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $8.92 per ADS on March 24, 2021.
The complaint alleges that the Company’s offering documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. Specifically, the offering documents were false or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants had overstated BlueCity’s business and financial prospects; (2) the Company was ill-equipped to absorb the costs of becoming a publicly traded company, including IPO- and growth-related costs; (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants had misrepresented the Company’s capability for sustainable growth; and (4) as a result, the offering documents were materially false or misleading and/or failed to state information required to be stated therein.
On June 17, 2021, ATI became public via a business combination with FVAC (“Business Combination”).
On July 26, 2021, before the market opened, ATI reported its financial results for second quarter 2021, the period in which the Business Combination was completed. Among other things, ATI reported that “the acceleration of attrition among [its] therapists in the second quarter and continuing into the third quarter, combined with the intensifying competition for clinicians in the labor market, prevented us from being able to meet the demand we have and increased our labor costs.” Though ATI was implementing certain remedial actions, the Company reduced its fiscal 2021 forecast due to the foregoing factors.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.62, or 43%, to close at $4.72 per share on July 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The share price continued to decline the next trading session by as much as 19%. As a result, FVAC investors who could have voted against the Business Combination and redeemed their shares at $10.00 per share suffered a loss of $5.28 per share.
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 ATI was experiencing attrition among its physical therapists; (2) that ATI faced increasing competition for clinicians in the labor market; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company faced difficulties retaining therapists and incurred increased labor costs; (4) that, as a result of the labor shortage, the Company would open fewer new clinics; 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.
Class Period: November 30, 2020 to August 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021
On March 8, 2021, CF II and View combined via a Business Combination with View as the surviving, public entity.
On August 16, 2021, after the market closed, View announced that it “began an independent investigation concerning the adequacy of the company’s previously disclosed warranty accrual.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $1.26, or over 24%, to close at $3.92 per share on August 17, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint 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 View had not properly accrued warranty costs related to its product; (2) that there was a material weakness in View’s internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related to warranty accrual; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s financial results for prior periods were misstated; 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.
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.
