RE:Don't forget The Class ActionClass action allegations
Huayan did not own the Heartbeat platform; (4) the Heartbeat platform did not exist prior to the alleged acquisition;
As compensation for the acquisition of Huayan's operations, Peak will pay Huayan and its shareholders a total of $31.0M, of which $11.0M will be payable in cash to be used by Huayan in various capacities to position Xinxiang for success as Huayan winds down its operations and transfers them to Xinxiang. The remaining $20.0M will be payable to Huayan's shareholders in common shares of Peak, of which $6.0M will be payable within ten business days of the signing of the agreement and $14.0M will be payable over a three-year period based on certain net income targets to be achieved by Xinxiang during that period. jetfuel10X wrote: Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company did not own 51% of ASFC through Wuxi Aorong; (2) the Company did not disclose its actual ownership structure of ASFC, an undisclosed and potentially problematic nominee shareholder agreement; (3) Huayan did not own the Heartbeat platform; (4) the Heartbeat platform did not exist prior to the alleged acquisition; (5) the Company faced imminent delisting from NASDAQ due to non-compliance with known regulations; (6) the “recent disclosure guidance” was in fact published on November 23, 2020, nearly a full nine months prior to the Company’s uplisting; (7) as such, the Company knew or should have known that its Form 40-F submission was deficient; (8) Cubeler historically failed to make even minimum loan repayments to the Company; (9) the Company, instead of exercising its right on the assets, decided to purchase Cubeler; (10) in light of the foregoing, and consideration of the fact that Cubeler is owned by several Company insiders, the acquisition of Cubeler is not based on legitimate business interests; the largest ASFC shareholder had his assets frozen due to court sanctions; (11) the creation of ASFC itself was likely a related party transaction; and (12) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.