NEW YORK, Feb. 15, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
Danske Bank A/S (OTCMKTS: DNKEY) Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Receipts between January 9, 2014 and October 23, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 11, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/danske-bank-a-s-loss-form?wire=3
Allegations: Danske Bank A/S made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Danske Bank’s Estonian branch was facilitating money laundering through at least March 2016; (ii) a whistleblower had reported the Estonian money laundering to the Company in 2013; (iii) Denmark’s Financial Supervisory Authority (the “DFSA”) had been investigating the Estonian money laundering since 2014; (iv) Danske Bank had concealed the results of its own internal investigation from the DFSA, further exposing it to regulatory action and fines; (v) Danske Bank had been overstating its historical profits by including the profits derived from its illicit Estonian operations; and (vi) Danske Bank lacked effective internal and reporting controls.
To learn more about the Danske Bank A/S class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com .
Sogou Inc. (NYSE: SOGO) Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to Sogou's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on November 9, 2017 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 11, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sogou-inc-loss-form?wire=3
Allegations: During the class period, Sogou Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou for regulatory action because of an increase in Sogou merchants’ sales of counterfeit goods; (ii) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou for regulatory action because Sogou’s existing software, advertising procedures, personnel, and audit procedures were insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations with governing Chinese regulations, and would need to be updated, enhanced, and strengthened, thus resulting in increased expenses; (iii) Sogou’s cost of revenues were skyrocketing primarily because of significant increases in Traffic Acquisition Cost, which is a primary driver of Sogou’s cost of revenues, as Sogou was dealing with significant price inflation from increased competition; (iv) Sogou was going to alter its strategy concerning smart hardware and push the Company’s AI capabilities to increase product competitiveness; (v) as a result of altering its smart hardware strategy, Sogou had already decided to phase out non-AI-enabled hardware products, such as legacy models of Teemo Smart Watch, and transition to use products integrating AI technologies, which Sogou hoped would reduce its hardware revenue in the second half of 2018; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Sogou’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
To learn more about the Sogou Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com .
Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY) Class Period: (i) all persons who purchased the common stock of Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY) between February 20, 2014 and August 7, 2018; (ii) all Dentsply International Inc. shareholders who held shares as of the record date of December 2, 2015 and were entitled to vote with respect to the Acquisition at the January 11, 2016 special meeting of Dentsply International Inc. shareholders; and (iii) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Dentsply International in exchange for their shares of common stock of Sirona in connection with the Acquisition Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/dentsply-sirona-i...orm?wire=3
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants attributed the Company’s financial performance to the Company’s “innovation,” “operational improvement efforts,” “new products,” and “continued investments in sales and marketing” and told investors that these factors helped the Company succeed despite the “highly competitive” market for its products. In reality, the Company’s financial results had been buoyed by an anticompetitive scheme among the Company’s three primary distributors that suppressed competition in the dental supply market and artificially inflated the price of dental supplies sold by Dentsply. Further, Defendants concealed that an exclusive distribution arrangement that Sirona had with one of its distributors, Patterson Companies, Inc. (“Patterson”), required Patterson to regularly make large minimum purchases regardless of demand and, as a result, by 2015, Patterson had been supplied with so much excess inventory that it could not be sold. This channel-stuffing rendered the Company’s reported sales, financial results and guidance materially false and misleading. In addition, the Company represented that it reported its financial statements, including its goodwill, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. In fact, the Company’s reported goodwill was artificially inflated and not reported in accordance with GAAP because it did not reflect the financial impact of the anticompetitive scheme.
To learn more about the Dentsply Sirona, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com .
NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQGS: NVDA) Class Period: August 10, 2017 - November 15, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/nvidia-corporatio...orm?wire=3
Allegations: NVIDIA Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) NVIDIA’s growth in its gaming GPU revenue was driven, as repeatedly denied by Defendants, in significant part by the spiked demand for those GPUs among cryptocurrency miners; (ii) NVIDIA did not have, as Defendants asserted, visibility into its inventory channel; (iii) NVIDIA was unable to adapt to the volatility of cryptocurrency markets; (iv) as cryptocurrency prices dropped, NVIDIA hid halting growth from cryptocurrency miners by continuing to push mid-range GPUs into the channel; (v) this would foreseeably cause an oversupply of gaming card inventory levels on the market and ultimately lead to over three months of excess inventory in NVIDIA’s channel; and (vi) as a result, NVIDIA’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
To learn more about the NVIDIA Corporation class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com .
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm’s attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Toll Free: (877) 363-5972 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com
