Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Sunlight, Gaia, Tattooed Chef, and Daktronics and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, Jan. 03, 2023 (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 Sunlight Financial Holdings, Inc. SUNL, Gaia, Inc. GAIA, Tattooed Chef, Inc. TTCF, and Daktronics, Inc. DAKT. 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.

Sunlight Financial Holdings, Inc. SUNL

Class Period: January 25, 2021 – September 28, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 14, 2023

Sunlight claims to be a business-to-business-to-consumer point-of-sale (“POS”) financing platform that provides residential solar and home improvement contractors the ability to offer seamless POS financing to their customers when purchasing residential solar systems or other home improvements. The Company claims the resulting loans are facilitated by Sunlight’s proprietary technology platform, Orange® (“Orange®” or the “Platform”), through which Sunlight offers instant credit decisions to homeowners at the POS on behalf of Sunlight’s various capital providers.

Sunlight became a publicly traded company in July 2021 via the business combination of Spartan Acquisition Corp. II, a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company, with Sunlight Financial LLC (“Legacy Sunlight”) (the “Business Combination”).

On September 28, 2022, after the market closed, Sunlight disclosed that it would record a “non-cash advance receivables impairment charge of $30 million to $33 million during the Company’s fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2022.” The Company explained that “the Company was informed of certain actions taken by one of its installer partners to address liquidity issues faced by the installer” which “would likely result in an inability of the Company to collect on advances outstanding to such installer.”

The same day, the Company also issued a press release withdrawing its full-year 2022 outlook due to the “installer liquidity event.” Defendant Matthew Potere was quoted stating, “While our risk exposure with other contractor advances is much smaller (the next three largest partner advances being $10 million, $7 million, and $5 million respectively), we are reunderwriting all contractor partners’ advances to further mitigate risk going forward.” (Emphasis added.)

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $1.44 per share, or 57.1%, to close at $1.08 per share on September 29, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

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 the Company lacked effective underwriting and risk evaluation with respect to its contractor advance program; (2) that Sunlight lacked the oversight and periodic monitoring systems necessary to timely detect bad debt associated with its contractor advance program; (3) that the Company lacked effective internal controls over accounting and reporting of non-cash advance receivables; (4) that, as a result, the Company would be forced to take a non-cash advance receivables impairment charge exceeding $30 million; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant’s positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Gaia, Inc. GAIA

Class Period: December 26, 2017 – November 7, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 20, 2023

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Gaia overstated its subscriber count for the first quarter of 2019. The Company failed to maintain appropriate internal controls. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Gaia, investors suffered damages.

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

Tattooed Chef, Inc. TTCF

Class Period: March 20, 2021 – October 12, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 21, 2023

On October 12, 2022, after market hours, the Company announced that it would restate its financial statements from March 31, 2021 to the present and revealed for the first time the revenue was overstated by $213,000 and the net loss was understated by $90,000 on the 1Q21 Report. On the 2Q21 Report, the revenue was overstated by $446,000 three months ended June 30, 2021 and $659,000 six months ended June 30, 2021 and the net loss was understated by $4,276,000 three months ended June 30, 2021 and $4,366,000 six months ended June 30, 2021. On the 3Q21 Report, the revenue was overstated by $425,000 three months ended September 30, 2021 and $878,000 nine months ended September 30, 2021 and the net loss was understated by $372,000 three months ended September 30, 2021 and $4,165,000 nine months ended September 30, 2021. On the Annual Report, the revenue was overstated by $5,436,000 ended December 31, 2021.

The Company also made numerous other changes in financial statements that revealed the extent of internal control weaknesses, stating the following, in pertinent part, in its current report filed with the SEC on Form 8-K:

On October 6, 2022, Tattooed Chef, Inc. (the “Company”) received a written notice pursuant to Item 4.02(b) from the Company’s former independent registered public accounting firm, BDO USA, LLP, that the Company’s unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021, and its audited annual consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021, and accompanying audit report, each as previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), were materially misstated and should no longer be relied upon and should be restated, because the Company (a) incorrectly recorded expenses related to a multi-vendor mailer program with a large customer as operating expenses rather than as a reduction of revenue; and (b) incorrectly recorded expenses for advertising placement by a marketing services firm on a straight-line basis over the life of the contract rather than when the services were actually rendered. For these reasons, pursuant to Item 4.02(a) the Board, after consultation with the Audit Committee, has also determined that the Company’s unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022 should no longer be relied upon.
(Emphasis added.)

On this news, Tattooed Chefs’ share price fell $0.44 per share, or 9.8%, from its close on October 12, 2022 to open on October 13, 2022 at $4.05 per share, damaging investors.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

For more information on the Tattooed Chef class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TTCF

Daktronics, Inc. DAKT

Class Period: March 10, 2022 – December 6, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 21, 2023

On August 31, 2022, Daktronics issued a press release announcing its first quarter 2023 results. Therein, the company reported that it experienced “multiple material supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, and a shutdown of our facilities in Shanghai, China for a significant portion of the quarter.” The Company also reported that gross profit as a percentage of net sales was 15%, which was lower compared to 22% a year earlier. Operating expenses were $31.3 million, compared to $26.5 million a year earlier. And operating margin for the first quarter of fiscal 2023 was negative 3.2%, compared to positive 3.9% for the first quarter of fiscal 2022.

On this news, Daktronics’ share price fell $0.91, or 22.1%, to close at $3.20 per share on August 31, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on December 6, 2022, after the market closed, Daktronics filed a Form 12b-25 with the SEC stating that it would be unable to timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 29, 2022, and that there is “substantial doubt” about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Daktronics also disclosed that it recorded a valuation allowance of approximately $13.0 million for deferred tax assets, which “created a covenant violation under our line of credit agreement.” As a result, the Company “also expects to conclude that its disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting were not effective as a result of material weaknesses.”

On this news, Daktronics’ share price fell $1.30, or 39.2%, to close at $2.02 per share on December 7, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

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 the Company was experiencing challenges that increased costs, including supply chain disruptions, that impacted Daktronics’ ability to fund inventory levels and operations; (2) that, as a result, it was probable that some portion of the Company’s deferred tax assets would not be realized; (3) that as a result, Daktronics was reasonably likely to record a material valuation allowance to its deferred tax assets; (4) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting related to income taxes; (5) that the foregoing presented liquidity concerns and there was substantial doubt as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern; (6) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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.