Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Covia Holdings, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, Kandi Technologies, and Qiwi and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
NEW YORK, Dec. 22, 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 Covia Holdings Corporation (Other OTC: CVIAQ), Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (“SMIC”) (Other OTC: SMICY), Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI), and Qiwi plc (NASDAQ: QIWI). 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.
Covia Holdings Corporation (Other OTC: CVIAQ)
Class Period: March 15, 2016 to June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021
On March 22, 2019, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 (the “2018 10-K”) with the SEC, which provided the Company’s fiscal year 2018 financial results and position. In the 2018 10-K, the Company revealed that it had received a subpoena from the SEC investigating certain value-added proppants.
On this news, the Company’s share prices dropped by $0.45, or approximately 6.9%, from closing at $6.50 on March 22, 2019 to close at $6.05 on March 25, 2019, the next trading day.
On November 6, 2019, the Company filed a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019 (the “3Q19 10-Q”) with the SEC, which provided the Company’s third quarter financial results and position. In the 3Q19 10-Q, the Company revealed that, in addition to the March 18, 2019 SEC subpoena, additional information was requested and subpoenaed regarding current and former employees.
On this news, the Company’s share prices dropped by $0.07, or approximately 4.3%, from opening at $1.63 on November 6, 2019 to close at $1.56.
On June 29, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into a comprehensive restructuring agreement with lenders and voluntarily filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code to implement the agreement.
On June 30, 2020, the NYSE delisted the Company, stating in part, “the Company is no longer suitable for listing [. . .] after the Company’s June 29, 2020 disclosure that the Company filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code[.]”
On this news, the Company’s share prices fell $0.18, or 37.5%, from closing at $0.48 on June 29, 2020, suspending trading June 30, 2020, and resuming trading OTC on July 1, 2020 at $0.30.
The complaint, filed on December 10, 2020, alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s proprietary ‘value-added’ proppants were not necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; (2) the Company’s revenues, which were dependent on its proprietary ‘value-added’ proppants, was based on misrepresentations; (3) when Company insiders raised this issue, the defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the issue; 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.
Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (“SMIC”) (Other OTC: SMICY)
Class Period: April 23, 2020 to September 26, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021
SMIC purports to be an investment holding company principally engaged in the computer-aided design, manufacture, testing, packaging and trading of integrated circuits (“IC”), as well as the provision of other semiconductor services. The Company is also involved in the design and manufacture of semiconductor masks and various types of wafers. The Company distributes its products in China and to overseas markets, such as the Europe and the United States.
On September 4, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled “EXCLUSIVE-Trump administration weighs blacklisting China's chipmaker SMIC”.
On this news, SMIC’s ADR price fell $3.08 per ADR, or over 20%, to close at $12.02 per ADR on September 8, 2020, the next trading day.
On September 26, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled “U.S. tightens exports to China's chipmaker SMIC, citing risk of military use”.
On this news, SMIC’s ADR price fell $0.57 per ADR, or 4.7%, to close at $11.47 per ADR on September 28, 2020, the next trading day.
The complaint, filed on December 10, 2020, alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was an “unacceptable risk” that equipment supplied to SMIC would be used for military purposes; (2) SMIC was foreseeably at risk of facing U.S. restrictions; (3) as a result of restrictions by the U.S. Department of Commerce, certain of SMIC's suppliers would need “difficult-to-obtain” individual export licenses; and (4) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
On November 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research (“Hindenburg”) published a report entitled “Kandi: How This China-Based NASDAQ-Listed Company Used Fake Sales, EV Hype to Nab $160 Million From U.S. Investors”. Citing “extensive on-the-ground inspection at Kandi’s factories and customer locations in China, interviews with over a dozen former employees and business partners, and review of numerous litigation documents and international public records”, the Hindenburg report asserted that almost 64% of Kandi's sales over the year have been to undisclosed related parties. The report also alleged that “[Kandi] has consistently booked revenue it cannot collect, a classic hallmark of fake revenue[.]”
Following the publication of the Hindenburg report, Kandi's stock price fell $3.86 per share, or 28.34%, to close at $9.76 per share on November 30, 2020.
The complaint, filed on December 11, 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) Kandi artificially inflated its reported revenues through undisclosed related party transactions, or otherwise had relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did not have an arms-length relationship with Kandi; (ii) the majority of Kandi’s sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related parties and/or parties with such a close relationship and history with Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their relationship; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi’s reported revenues and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact on the Company's reputation and valuation; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Qiwi together with its subsidiaries, purports to operate electronic online payment systems primarily in the Russia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Belarus, Romania, the United Arab Emirates, and internationally.
On December 9, 2020, after the market closed, Qiwi filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, announcing that the Central Bank of Russia had imposed a fine of approximately $150,000 for deficient record-keeping and reporting, and suspended the Company’s conduct most types of payments to foreign merchants and money transfers to pre-paid cards from corporate accounts.
On this news, Qiwi’s ADS price fell $2.80 per share, or 20.6%, to close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 2020.
The complaint, filed on December 11, 2020, alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Qiwi’s internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose restrictions upon the Company’s ability to make payments to foreign merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
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.
