NEW YORK, June 21, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Livent Corporation, PriceSmart, Inc., Hecla Mining Company, and A.O. Smith Corporation. Stockholders have until the deadlines listed below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Livent Corporation (NYSE: LTHM)
Class Period: Between October 7, 2018 and May 22, 2019 and/or traceable to the Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) on or about October 12, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 22, 2019
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) a supply contract with Nemaska Lithium Inc. had been terminated; (2) as a result, the company would be forced to fulfill its customer contracts using alternative vendors at reduced revenues and lower margins; (3) the company had a long-standing contract to supply lithium hydroxide to a customer at a much lower price than any of the company’s existing contracts; (4) the company’s margins were squeezed due to the customer’s increased orders; and (5) 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.
To learn more about the Livent class action go to: http://bespc.com/lthm/.
PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSMT)
Class Period: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 22, 2019
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, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the company’s omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach key operating goals; (2) the company’s South America distribution strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) the company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates of deposits with financial institutions; (4) these investments had been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) the relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements; (6) there was a material weakness in the company’s internal controls over financial reporting; (7) increasing competition negatively impacted the company’s revenue and profitability; and (8) 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.
To learn more about the PriceSmart class action go to: http://bespc.com/psmt/.
Hecla Mining Company (NYSE: HL)
Class Period: March 19, 2018 - May 8, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2019
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hecla’s Nevada operations were hemorrhaging cash due to a multitude of material problems identified by defendants during Hecla’s extensive due diligence of the Nevada mines before the Class Period; (2) due to these material problems, defendants had no reasonable basis for their representations that the Nevada operations would be in a position to have positive or self-funding cash flow; and (3) as a result, Hecla’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
To learn more about the Hecla class action go to: http://bespc.com/hl/.
A.O. Smith Corporation (NYSE: AOS)
Class Period: July 26, 2016 to May 16, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29. 2019
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) A.O. Smith had undisclosed business connections and entanglements with UTP through which it funneled up to 75% of its China product sales; (b) A.O. Smith had used UTP to engage in channel stuffing by artificially inflating inventories purportedly sold through distributors that were not based on consumer demand, thereby approximately doubling the normal level of inventory at such distributors; (c) A.O. Smith had used its UTP relationship to artificially inflate the sales figures it reported to investors by as much as 8% and to conceal worsening sales trends that the Company was experiencing in China; (d) A.O. Smith’s sales growth had been primarily in lower margin products as its higher priced products were being undercut by competition in “second-tier” Chinese cities, causing the Company to experience significant margin pressures; (e) A.O. Smith had increased its cash reserves in China to over $530 million in furtherance of its channel stuffing and sales manipulation scheme, encumbering the Company’s ability to repatriate the cash or use it for capital expenditures; and (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above, A.O. Smith’s business, operations, and prospects were significantly worse than publicly represented and the Company was poised for sales and earnings declines in China, its most important international market.
To learn more about the A.O. Smith class action go to: go to https://bespc.com/aos/.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
