Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Tupperware, Unilever, Yext, and Inotiv and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, Aug. 05, 2022 (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 Tupperware Brands Corporation TUP, Unilever PLC UL, Yext, Inc. YEXT, and Inotiv, Inc. NOTV. 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.

Tupperware Brands Corporation TUP

Class Period: November 3, 2021 – May 3, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 15, 2022

On May 4, 2022, Tupperware announced its financial results for the first quarter of 2022. Among other items, Tupperware reported adjusted earnings per share from continuing operations and net sales that fell well short of consensus estimates and withdrew its full year 2022 guidance and named a new Chief Financial Officer. The Company attributed the poor performance to the conflict in Russian and Ukraine. However, when pressed by analysts on a conference call, the Company acknowledged that Russian and Ukraine only accounted for 2% of its revenue.

On this news, Tupperware’s stock price fell $5.76 per share, or 32.16%, to close at $12.15 per share on May 4, 2022.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tupperware was facing significant challenges in maintain its earning and sales performance; (ii) accordingly, Tupperware’s full year 2022 guidance was unrealistic and/or unsustainable; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Tupperware’s financial condition; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Tupperware class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TUP

Unilever PLC UL

Class Period: September 2, 2020 – July 21, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 15, 2022

On July 19, 2021, Unilever’s subsidiary ice cream company, Ben & Jerry’s announced that, upon the expiration of the current licensing agreement by which its products had been distributed in Israel for decades, it would end sales of its ice cream in “Occupied Palestinian Territory” but would purportedly continue to sell its products in Israel. On this news, the Company’s ADR price fell $0.58 per ADR, or 1%.

Then, on July 22, 2021, CNBC reported that Texas and Florida were examining Ben & Jerry’s actions in connection with their legislation against the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (“BDS”) movement, a controversial movement whose objective is to coerce Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians. In a letter from the state of Florida’s CFO Jimmy Patronis, who controls Florida’s public pension funds, Florida would “be prohibited from investing in Ben & Jerry’s or its parent company, Unilever.” That also meant that Unilever could not enter or renew contracts with the state or any municipality in Florida.

On this news, Unilever’s ADR price fell $3.08, or 5.4%, to close at $53.45 per ADR on July 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors further.

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, in July 2020, Ben & Jerry’s board passed a resolution to end sales of its ice cream in “Occupied Palestinian Territory”; (2) the risks attendant to the Ben & Jerry’s board’s decision; (3) the foregoing risked adverse governmental actions for violations of laws, executive orders, or resolutions aimed at discouraging boycotts, divestment, and sanctions of Israel adopted by 35 U.S. states; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the Unilever class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/UL

Yext, Inc. YEXT

Class Period: March 4, 2021 – March 8, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 16, 2022

Yext organizes a business’ facts to provide answers to consumer questions online. The Company operates yext platform, a cloud-based platform that allows its customers to, among other things, provide answers to consumer questions, control facts about their business and the content of their landing pages, and manage their consumer reviews. Yext’s website describes its service as “a modern, AI-powered Answers Platform that understands natural language so that when people ask questions about a business online they get direct answers – not links.”

As COVID-19 resurged throughout 2021, Yext consistently assured investors that pandemic-related impacts on the Company’s business were limited as the Company adapted to lockdowns and improved efficiencies in its sales and other operations.

On March 8, 2022, Yext issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter (“Q4”) and FY fiscal 2022 results. Among other items, Yext reported Q4 fiscal 2022 revenue of $100.9 million, falling short of consensus estimates by $140,000; first quarter (“Q1”) fiscal 2023 revenue outlook of $96.3 million to $97.3 million, versus consensus estimates of $103.79 million; Q1 fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per share outlook of $0.08 to $0.07, versus consensus estimates of $0.05; FY fiscal 2023 revenue outlook of $403.3 million to $407.3 million, versus consensus estimates of $444.71 million; and FY fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per share outlook of $0.19 to $0.17, versus consensus estimates of $0.09. The Company further disclosed the departure of its CEO and CFO.

That same day, on a conference call to discuss Yext’s Q4 and FY fiscal 2022 results, the Company’s incoming CEO, Michael Walrath (“Walrath”), addressed the Company’s disappointing financial results, revealing, inter alia, that “we have seen fragmentation in our interactions with customers and our ability to deliver premium service and support” and that, “[i]n hindsight, it is clear we were too focused on building sales capacity and not focused enough on other functions that drive productivity, particularly sales enablement, training, client success and services.” Walrath also disclosed that “we saw a really significant disruption in our business” such as “in Q4, 50% — over 50% of our in-person events were canceled because of the Omicron surges[,]” while opining that Yext could “[a]bsolutely” improve its “sales motion so that it’s more efficient during disruptions like that[.]”

Following that call, a Truist Securities analyst lowered the firm’s rating on Yext to hold from buy and slashed its price target to $6 from $17, noting, among other things, that key performing indicators showed an “unexpected slowdown” in Q4, guidance for fiscal 2023 shows no near-term turn around, and that “planned changes under new management (in go-to-market strategy, sales organization) carry execution risks and the timing for a meaningful and sustainable revival in growth is unclear[.]”

Following these disclosures, Yext’s stock price fell $.055 per share, or 9.29%, to close at $5.37 per share on March 9, 2022.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Yext’s revenue and earnings were significantly deteriorating because of, inter alia, poor sales execution and performance, as well as COVID-19 related disruptions; (ii) accordingly, Yext was unlikely to meet consensus estimates for its full year (“FY”) fiscal 2022 financial results and fiscal 2023 outlook; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Yext class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/YEXT

Inotiv, Inc. NOTV

Class Period: September 21, 2021 – June 13, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 22, 2022

The litigation challenges Inotiv’s claims regarding its Envigo business, which the company acquired in Sept. 2021, including that Envigo maintained “high standards of animal welfare” at its Cumberland, Virginia facility and other animal testing sites.

On May 20, 2022, Inotiv announced that on May 18 federal and state law enforcement conducted a search and seizure warrant on the Cumberland facility. The company also announced the DOJ sued Envigo for violations of the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”).

Then, on May 21, 2022, the court in the DOJ’s case ordered a halt to violations of the AWA at Cumberland. The court’s order observed that hundreds of beagle puppies died in the Cumberland facility (many of which were not given anesthesia before they were euthanized by intracardiac injection), nursing female beagles were denied food, and many puppies died from cold exposure. About 3 weeks later, Inotiv announced it was closing Cumberland.

These events sent the price of Inotiv shares crashing.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Envigo RMS, LLC (“Envigo”) and Inotiv’s Cumberland, Virginia facility (the “Cumberland Facility”) engaged in widespread and flagrant violations of the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”); (2) Envigo and Inotiv’s Cumberland Facility continuously violated the AWA; (3) Envigo and Inotiv did not properly remedy issues with regards to animal welfare at the Cumberland Facility; (4) as a result, Inotiv was likely to face increased scrutiny and governmental action; (5) Inotiv would imminently shut down two facilities, including the Cumberland Facility; (6) Inotiv did not engage in proper due diligence; and (7) 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

For more information on the Inotiv class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/NOTV

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.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com


This post was originally published on this site

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.