Sign In  |  Register  |  About Pleasanton  |  Contact Us

Pleasanton, CA
September 01, 2020 1:32pm
7-Day Forecast | Traffic
  • Search Hotels in Pleasanton

  • ROOMS:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Tingo, Peloton, and DouYu and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, June 19, 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 Tingo Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TIO), Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTON), and DouYu International Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: DOYU). 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.

Tingo Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TIO)

Class Period: December 1, 2022 – June 6, 2023

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 7, 2023

On June 6, 2023, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a report titled "Tingo Group: Fake Farmers, Phones, and FinancialsThe Nigerian Empire That Isn't." Therein, Hindenburg disclosed, among other things, that Tingo "is an exceptionally obvious scam with completely fabricated financials." Hindenburg further stated that Dozy Mmobuosi ("Mmobuosi") appears to have fabricated his biographical claim, including that he developed the first mobile payment app in Nigeria and that he received a PhD in rural advancement from a Malaysian university in 2007.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.23, or 48.2%, to close at $1.32 per share on June 6, 2023, 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 Defendant Mmobuosi fabricated biographical claims about himself; (2) that Tingo had photoshopped its logo onto pictures of airplanes it did not own; (3) that Tingo inflated its food division margins; (4) that Tingo published misleading images of its planned Nigerian food processing facility and overstated its progress on the facility's construction; (5) that Tingo inflated its food inventory; (6) that Tingo did not have relationships with the two farming cooperatives it claimed; (7) that Tingo did not generate $128 million in revenue for its handset leasing, call and data segments as it claimed; (8) that Tingo's Mobile operation in Nigeria was delinquent on its tax obligations; (9) that Tingo photoshopped its logo over pictures from a different point of sale system operator's website; (10) that Tingo did not generate $125.3 million in revenue from NWASSA; (11) that Tingo's agricultural export business was not on track to deliver $1.34 billion in exports by Q3 2023; (12) that Tingo lacked effective controls over accounting and financial reporting; and (13) that, 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.

For more information on the Tingo class action go to:

Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTON)

Class Period: May 10, 2022 – May 10, 2023

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 8, 2023

Based in New York City, Peloton is a fitness-equipment and media company. During the Class Period, Peloton sold internet-connected stationary bicycles and treadmills that were designed and marketed for use in customers' homes. The bicycles and treadmills include connected touchscreen devices through which customers can access exercise classes and other content. To that end, in addition to the exercise equipment, Peloton sells monthly subscription services that allow customers to access fitness classes using their Peloton equipment, or alternatively to access classes and related content on their own devices, without using Peloton equipment.

For most of 2020 and 2021, as the COVID-19 pandemic and related stay-at-home orders and business closures largely kept individuals out of the gym, the demand for in-home exercise options increased dramatically. Against that backdrop, in the months leading up to the Class Period, Peloton experienced unprecedented demand for its products and services. As Defendant John Foley ("Foley") confirmed in statements to investors on February 11, 2021, "there's been crazy demand for our products because gyms have been closed or you didn't want to go to the gym because you might get COVID there. So, the demand has been through the roof[.]"

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly and falsely assured investors that Peloton's recent success was not primarily due to COVID-related increased demand, but rather that the Company's growth and financial results were sustainable and would continue post-COVID. For example, on December 9, 2020, the first day of the Class Period, in response to an investor's question about "how a post-COVID world impacts [Peloton's] view of [its] business opportunity," Defendant Foley assured investors that Peloton's results "ha[ve] nothing to do with COVID. That is a human need of I want to get fit, I want fitness in my life in a consistent way; . . . I want it to be convenient, I want it to be fun, I want it to be motivating, and I want it to be a great value. And all of those things are foundational to what Peloton delivers, always delivered it. We delivered it in pre-COVID, during COVID, and we will deliver it post-COVID." Defendants also represented to investors during the Class Period that investments in the Company's supply chain, including increasing the number of bikes and treadmills produced and reducing the average time it takes to deliver products to customers, were sound investments that would enable Peloton to align supply and demand for its products. For example, on February 4, 2021, in a letter to Peloton shareholders, the Company stated that "our supply chain investments over the last several months are helping us better match our supply and demand going forward." Accordingly, Defendants represented that the rising inventory levels reported in the Company's periodic financial reports filed with the SEC during the Class Period reflected outstanding demand, including orders that had not yet been filled, rather than excess supply that outpaced waning demand.

Defendants' Class Period representations that Peloton would continue to succeed and grow post-COVID were false. In truth, Peloton's Class Period financial results were primarily driven by COVID-related increases in demand for at-home exercise options. As gyms have reopened and other outside-the-home exercise options have become more available because of COVID vaccinations being more widespread and other COVID-related restrictions abating, demand for Peloton's equipment and subscription services have declined substantially. Moreover, rather than matching supply and demand, Peloton had a massive growth in inventory that far exceeded customer demand. Further, the Company has admitted that it suffered from a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting during the Class Period, specifically concerning inventory levels. In light of that material weakness, the Company could not accurately report its inventory levels, and had no sound basis to represent to investors that supply, and demand were aligned.

The truth began to emerge on August 26, 2021, after the market closed, when Peloton disclosed, one day in advance of its announcement of the Company's financial results for its fiscal year 2021, that "in the course of our fiscal 2021 audit process, a material weakness was identified in our internal controls over financial reporting with respect to identification and valuation of inventory." In the Company's Annual Report for its fiscal year 2021, filed with the SEC on Form 10-K on August 27, 2021, it further disclosed that "this material weakness arose because our controls were not effectively designed, documented and maintained to verify that our physical inventory counts were correctly counted and communicated for reporting in our financial statements."

As a result of these disclosures, the price of Peloton common stock declined by $9.75 per share, or 8.5%, from a closing price of $114.09 per share on August 26, 2021 to a closing price of $104.34 per share on August 27, 2021. At the same time, however, Peloton made false, reassuring statements to investors, including issuing guidance of $5.4 billion of total revenue for fiscal year 2022 (beginning September 1, 2021), representing 34% year-over-year growth. Discussing that guidance, Defendant Jill Woodworth claimed that "we are entering fiscal 2022 with a normalized backlog for our Bike portfolio and guidance reflects our expectation of continued strong demand."

Then, on November 4, 2021, after the market closed, Peloton shocked investors when it disclosed that it had revised its full year revenue guidance down to a range of $4.4 to $4.8 billion dollars due to declining demand as its customers were increasingly free to exercise outside the home. And regarding inventory, Peloton disclosed that inventory totaled $1.27 billion, a 35% increase over the prior quarter, 91% of which were "finished products" that the Company still held.

As a result of these disclosures, the price of Peloton common stock declined by $30.42 per share, or over 35%, from a closing price of $86.06 per share on November 4, 2021 to $55.64 per share on November 5, 2021, erasing $8.1 billion in shareholder value.

For more information on the Peloton class action go to:

DouYu International Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: DOYU)

Class Period: April 30, 2021 – May 9, 2023

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 8, 2023

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) The Chinese government, due to concerns about issues such as video game and computer addiction, as well as content challenging its authority, could become increasingly aggressive towards DouYu regardless of how effective or sincere its attempts to comply with Chinese law were; (2) this increasingly aggressive posture subjected DouYu to a heightened risk of an investigation and subsequent government enforcement action and ultimately resulted in enforcement action; and (3) 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 DouYu class action go to:

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 Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648

Primary Logo

Data & News supplied by
Stock quotes supplied by Barchart
Quotes delayed at least 20 minutes.
By accessing this page, you agree to the following
Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.
Photography by Christophe Tomatis
Copyright © 2010-2020 & California Media Partners, LLC. All rights reserved.