EQUITY ALERT: Rosen Law Firm Notifies Flex Ltd. Investors of Expanded Class Period in …

… period in the lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities, including common stock and exchange-traded options on such common stock, …

NEW YORK, May 2, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the expanded class period in the lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities, including common stock and exchange-traded options on such common stock, of Flex Ltd. (NASDAQ: FLEX) from January 26, 2017 through October 25, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Flex investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Flex class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1335.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Flex’s internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak and deficient; (2) Flex had improperly accounted for obligations in a customer contract and certain related reserves; (3) Flex had experienced operational issues with its co-manufacturing project with Nike which resulted in the winding down this project because Flex was “unable to reach a commercially viable solution” for the project; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Flex’s financial statements and defendants’ statements about Flex’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 4, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1335.html to join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.

Phillip Kim, Esq.

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor

New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060

Toll Free: (866) 767-3653

Fax: (212) 202-3827

lrosen@rosenlegal.com

pkim@rosenlegal.com

cases@rosenlegal.com

www.rosenlegal.com

SOURCE Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Related Links

http://www.rosenlegal.com

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

EQUITY ALERT: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Weight Watchers International, Inc. Investors of …

EQUITY ALERT: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Weight Watchers International, Inc. Investors of Important May 3rd Deadline in Securities Class Action – …

(MENAFN – PR Newswire)

NEW YORK, April 19, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Weight Watchers International, Inc. from May 4, 2018 through February 26, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”) of the important May 3, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Weight Watchers investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Weight Watchers class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1528.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email or for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Weight Watchers was experiencing diminished subscriber demand attributable to the onslaught of new competing smartphone fitness apps, meal-delivery services, and other tech advances that were driving down Weight Watchers’ new subscriber growth and subscriber retention rates; (2) diminished subscriber growth, when coupled with a much larger number of fourth quarter subscription lapses than Weight Watchers would typically experience, made it highly unlikely that Weight Watchers would retain four million subscribers by the end of 2018; (3) Weight Watchers was not on track to grow its subscriber count to five million or to drive annual revenues to more than $2 billion by the end of 2020; (4) a decreased subscriber count would result in decreased revenues profits; and (5) as a result, defendants’ statements about Weight Watchers’ business metrics and financial prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 3, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1528.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at or .

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm , on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/ .

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.Phillip Kim, Esq.The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.275 Madison Avenue, 34th FloorNew York, NY 10016Tel: (212) 686-1060Toll Free: (866) 767-3653Fax: (212) 202-3827 www.rosenlegal.com

SOURCE Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Related Links

http://www.rosenlegal.com

× Modal title

MENAFN1904201900701241ID1098413635

EQUITY ALERT: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Weight Watchers International, Inc. Investors of Important May 3rd Deadline in Securities Class Action - WTW

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Notice Of Dismissal Of In Re Gigamon, Inc. Delaware Class Action Lawsuit

Attorneys for Defendants Elliott Associates, L.P., Elliott Management Corporation, Elliott International, L.P., Elliott International Capital Advisors Inc., …

SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 16, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Gigamon Inc. (“Gigamon“), the essential element of network and security infrastructure, providing pervasive visibility to network traffic across physical, virtual, and cloud environments, today announced the notice of dismissal of a Delaware class action lawsuit.

On October 26, 2017, Gigamon Inc. (“Gigamon”) announced that it had entered into an agreement with entities affiliated with Elliott Management Corporation (“Elliott”) to be acquired for $38.50 per share (the “Transaction”).

On November 30, 2017, two actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of Gigamon stockholders against Gigamon, its Board of Directors (the “Board”), Elliott, and certain entities affiliated with Elliott. The lawsuits, which were consolidated into a single action (the “Action”), challenged, among other things, Gigamon’s public disclosures about the Transaction. Plaintiffs in the Action identified information that the plaintiffs contended should have been, but was not, disclosed to Gigamon’s stockholders in the proxy statement related to the Transaction.

On December 12, 2017, and in response to the Action, Gigamon made supplemental disclosures (the “Supplemental Disclosures”) within a Form 8-K that it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Supplemental Disclosures made the disclosure claims asserted in the Action moot. Therefore, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the Action. The defendants deny that the Supplemental Disclosures contained any additional material facts that were required to be disclosed, and deny that any claim asserted in the Action is or was ever meritorious. On April 12, 2019, the Court of Chancery entered an order dismissing the Action and the claims asserted in the Action with prejudice only as to all named plaintiffs individually, and without prejudice as to any actual or potential claims of members of the putative class.

Gigamon has agreed to make a fee and expense payment to plaintiffs’ counsel in the Action of $500,000.00 to resolve any application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be made by counsel for plaintiffs in the Action for the alleged benefit conferred on Gigamon stockholders through the issuance of the Supplemental Disclosures detailed above. The Court of Chancery has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of fees and expenses or its reasonableness.

If you have any questions regarding the litigation, please contact any of the attorneys below:

MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC

Juan E. Monteverde

The Empire State Building

350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405

New York, New York 10118

Tel.: 212-971-1341

Fax: 212-202-7880

Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.

David Berger

650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304

650-320-4901

Email: DBerger@wsgr.com

Attorneys for Defendants Gigamon Inc., Corey M. Mulloy, Paul A. Hooper, Michael C. Ruettgers, John H. Kispert, Paul J. Milbury, Ted C. Ho, Robert E. Switz, Joan A. Dempsey, Dario Zamarian, and Arthur W. Coviello, Jr.

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

Brian M. Lutz

555 Mission Street

Suite 3000

San Francisco, California 94105-0921

(415) 393-8379

Email: blutz@gibsondunn.com

Attorneys for Defendants Elliott Associates, L.P., Elliott Management Corporation, Elliott International, L.P., Elliott International Capital Advisors Inc., The Liverpool Limited Partnership, Evergreen Coast Capital Corp., Ginsberg Holdco, Inc., and Ginsberg Merger Sub, Inc.

About Gigamon

Gigamon is the recognized leader in network visibility solutions, delivering the power needed to see, secure and empower enterprise networks. Our solutions accelerate threat detection and incident response times while empowering customers to maximize their infrastructure performance across physical, virtual and cloud networks. Since 2004 we have cultivated a global customer base which includes leading Service Providers, Government Agencies as well as Enterprise NetOps and SecOps teams from more than 80 percent of the Fortune 100. For the full story on how we can help reduce risk, complexity, and cost to meet your business needs, visit our website, follow our blog, and connect with us on your favorite social channels Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.

SOURCE Gigamon Inc.

Related Links

http://www.gigamon.com

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Judge in Tezos class action picks new lead without reopening selection process

If I’m right, these back-to-back decisions from Judge Seeborg in Tezos and Judge Wilson in Snap are going to leave securities litigators with more …

(Reuters) – For the second time in a week, the judge presiding over a securities class action has picked a new investor to take over a case in which the court-appointed lead plaintiff sought to withdraw for personal reasons. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of San Francisco ruled that a previously passed-over candidate will now be in charge of a class action claiming that the backers of the $230 million Tezos cryptocurrency offering were selling unregistered securities, replacing a lead plaintiff whose social media posts might have created problems for the prospective class.

Judge Seeborg chose not to re-open the lead shareholder selection process to all shareholders. That’s a departure from the road traveled by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of Los Angeles, who picked a new lead shareholder last week in a securities class action against Snap after his original choice for lead plaintiff backed out. I’ve predicted that these mid-case lead plaintiff contretemps are going to become a more common occurrence as institutional investors cede control of securities class actions to individual shareholders. If I’m right, these back-to-back decisions from Judge Seeborg in Tezos and Judge Wilson in Snap are going to leave securities litigators with more questions than answers about how the process should work.

Want more On the Case? Listen to the On the Case podcast.

The Tezos and Snap defendants deny the allegations in the underlying cases. Brian Klein of Baker Marquart, who represents key defendants in the Tezos suit, said it is “no surprise” that plaintiffs’ lawyers “are having a hard time finding credible lead plaintiffs,” Klein said in an email statement. “The class action lawsuit, which is frivolous and lacks any legal merit, is being driven entirely by plaintiff attorneys in pursuit of a windfall.”

Both the Snap and Tezos class actions had survived dismissal motions and were on the verge of class certification when court-appointed lead plaintiffs moved to withdraw. In both cases, lead counsel proposed swapping in new lead shareholders chosen by them. Lawyers for the Snap and Tezos defendants – who deny the underlying class allegations – argued that lead counsel can’t simply pick new clients to take charge of shareholder class actions. Citing the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the Snap and Tezos defendants called on the presiding judges to re-open the selection process.

That’s where Judge Seeborg and Judge Wilson parted ways. Judge Wilson agreed with Snap’s lawyers at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati that all prospective lead shareholders must have a new opportunity to ask for appointment. He threw the selection process open to all Snap investors. In the end, six prospective lead plaintiffs moved for appointment, including one shareholder whom Judge Wilson had previously rejected; an institutional investor that had not participated in the initial lead plaintiff contest; and a new investor group represented by the plaintiffs’ firm that had been litigating the case for nearly two years, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. Judge Wilson picked Kessler Topaz’s clients, even though they had lost less money than two other candidates.

Judge Seeborg decided not to re-open the selection process to all potential lead plaintiffs, holding that the PSLRA does not require all shareholders to be notified that leadership of the ongoing case is up for grabs. Following the analysis in a 2003 trial court order in In re Portal Software, in which a San Francisco federal judge denied a motion to add a new lead plaintiff to a securities class action, Judge Seeborg said there’s no need to relaunch the selection process because a previously-rejected candidate has stepped up.

“This case does not lack ‘willing plaintiffs with large financial stakes in the litigation,’” Judge Seeborg wrote, quoting In re Portal. The judge said that other judges have looked first to passed-over applicants in at least three shareholder class actions with problematic lead plaintiffs, including a California case against UCBH Holdings and a New York case against SLM Corp.

In the initial lead plaintiff contest in the Tezos case, the judge said, Trigon Trading alleged losses second only to the winning candidate. So now that the original lead is withdrawing, Judge Seeborg held, Trigon should be in charge.(Trigon’s lawyers at Block & Leviton filed a parallel securities class action in state court in California after losing the original lead plaintiff appointment but told Judge Seeborg they would drop the state court case.)

Interestingly, Judge Seeborg also said that one of the law firms for the original lead plaintiff, HGT Law, can stay in the case as co-lead counsel with Block & Leviton because the class of investors will benefit from the work HGT has already put into the case. In that regard, at least, Judge Seeborg aligned with Judge Wilson in the Snap case: Judge Wilson also found a way for the plaintiffs’ lawyers who had developed the litigation to remain in charge.

But I think the lasting impact of the Snap and Tezos cases will be the judges’ contrasting conclusions about the requisite process of selecting a new lead plaintiff in the middle of a case. Must all shareholders receive new notice or not? Judges Seeborg and Wilson gave new ammunition this week to each side of that debate.

Joel Fleming of Block & Leviton and Hung Ta of HGT declined to provide statements on Judge Seeborg’s ruling.

The views expressed in this article are not those of Reuters News.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Judge Taps Prior Runner-Up as Lead Plaintiff in Tezos ICO Securities Suit

With the lead plaintiff in the proposed securities class action against the organizers of the Tezos initial coin offering asking to step aside, the San …

Tezos logo Tezos (courtesy photo)

With the lead plaintiff in the proposed securities class action against the organizers of the Tezos initial coin offering asking to step aside, the San Francisco federal judge overseeing the case has tapped the runner-up in the earlier competition for the lead spot to replace him.

Initially lead plaintiff Arman Anvari, an attorney who previously practiced at Latham & Watkins, Baker McKenzie, and Perkins Coie, asked to bow out of the case earlier this year. The move came after defense lawyers at Cooley and Baker Marquart identified pseudonyms they believe Anvari adopted on social media sites which used anti-Semitic slurs in reference to Arthur and Kathleen Breitman. The Breitmans are the husband-and-wife team behind Tezos, the digital currency platform that raised $232 million in cryptocurrency for an ICO that became bogged down in technical delays, sparking a string of class action lawsuits.

Anvari’s lawyers at HGT Law and LTL Attorneys had asked to substitute a new lead plaintiff, Artiom Frunze, who claimed even more losses than the $264,007.50 worth of ether cryptocurrency Anvari allegedly had tied up in the Tezos ICO.

But on Monday, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, who is overseeing the Tezos securities litigation, found that Frunze first applied for lead plaintiff outside the 60-day notice period outlined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which regulates securities cases in the federal courts.

Seeborg instead named Trigon Trading Pty. Ltd., which had the second-highest alleged losses among the initial batch of candidates, as lead plaintiff. The judge, however, allowed HGT Law’s Hung Ta, one of Anvari’s lawyers, to remain as co-lead counsel in the case alongside Trigon’s lawyers at Block & Leviton, noting that the current lead counsel had already litigated the case past a defense motion to dismiss. Seeborg wrote Monday that “in light of Anvari’s counsels’ extensive work and knowledge of the case, the class would benefit from their continued prosecution of this case.”

The judge, also on Monday, denied a defense proposal to re-open the PSLRA notice process and denied a pending class certification motion in the case, but granted leave to amend.

Neither Ta nor lawyers at Block Leviton immediately responded to messages seeking comment Monday.

Tezos’ backers were hit with class action lawsuits starting in November 2017 alleging that the blockbuster ICO, where investors prepaid for digital tokens that were expected to trade on the Tezos blockchain, violated U.S. securities laws and misled investors. Seeborg allowed the claims against the Breitmans and Dynamic Ledger Solutions, the blockchain company they co-founded, to move past a motion to dismiss in August 2018. The Tezos token, XTZ, launched the month after Seeborg’s ruling.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts