Select Page

NEW YORK, Sept. 02, 2020 (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 Anaplan, Inc. (NYSE: PLAN), Blink Charging Company (NADSAQ: BLNK), Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK), and Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY). 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.
Anaplan, Inc. (NYSE: PLAN)Class Period: November 21, 2019 to February 26, 2020Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020On February 27, 2020, the Company announced that, although it slightly exceeded revenue guidance for the quarter ($98.2mm versus $97.5mm estimate), which grew at rate of 42% year-over-year, its calculated billings for the fourth quarter fell far short of expectations. Specifically, billings were only $126 million, representing a growth rate of 25%, which was well below consensus estimates of $138 million, and roughly half of the Company’s historical growth rates of 46% to 59%, and far less than the Company’s rate of revenue growth of over 40%.In response to this shocking disclosure, that was in stark contrast to the management’s previous statement that the calculated billings growth rate would track the revenue growth rate, Anaplan’s stock price plummeted 25% in a single day, falling from $58.09 to $44.03, wiping out almost $2 billion in market capitalization. Financial news source Barron’s attributed the stock price decline to the slowing billings growth with an article titled “Anaplan stock plunges on concerns about slowing billings growth.”The complaint, filed on August 24, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was undergoing sales organization and execution challenges; (2) these organizational challenges were causing the Company to miss on closing very important large deals; and (3) as a result, Anaplan’s financial guidance for “calculated billings growth” was baseless and unattainable. Further, while in possession of this material non-public information, Anaplan insiders dumped approximately $30 million worth of Anaplan stock at artificially inflated prices.For more information on the Anaplan securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/PLANBlink Charging Company (NADSAQ: BLNK)Class Period: March 6, 2020 to August 19, 2020Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020On August 19, 2020, analyst Culper Research issued a report on Blink Charging, contending that “the Company has vastly exaggerated the size of its EV charging network in order to siphon money from the pockets of investors to insiders. Blink claims that ‘EV drivers can easily charge at any of its 15,000 charging stations’ but we estimate the Company’s functional public charging station network consists of just 2,192 stations, a mere 15% of this claim.” Culper continued that its “investigators confirmed what Blink’s financials already suggest: almost no one uses Blink’s charging stations, many of which are in utterly decrepit condition.”On this news, Blink’s stock price fell from its August 18, 2020 closing price of $10.23 per share to an August 20, 2020 closing price of $7.94. This represents a two day drop of approximately 22.4%.The complaint, filed on August 24, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) many of Blink’s charging stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, or non-accessible; (2) Blink’s purported partnerships and expansions with other companies were overstated; (3) the purported growth of the Company’s network has been overstated; and (4) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.For more information on the Blink class action go to: https://bespc.com/BLNKBraskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK)Class Period: May 6, 2016 to July 8, 2020Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020On April 2, 2019, media sources and, later, Braskem, disclosed that the Company had been sued by local authorities in connection with a geological event it had purportedly caused in the state of Alagoas, Brazil.  Specifically, Braskem disclosed, in relevant part, that the Company “ha[d] become aware, through the media, of a lawsuit filed against it by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office, both of the State of Alagoas.”  The Company also disclosed that the lawsuits were “requesting the freezing of amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion to guarantee any potential damages owed to the general public affected by the geological phenomenon which occurred in districts near the rock salt extraction area in Maceió.”On this news, Braskem’s American Depositary Share (“ADS”) price fell $1.60 per share over two trading days, or 5.98%, to close at $25.14 per share on April 3, 2020.On July 9, 2020, Braskem disclosed that authorities in northeastern Brazil had advised the Company that the geological damage from its salt mining operations was more widespread than initial estimates.  Specifically, among other things, 1,918 properties needed to be evacuated because of the geological event associated with Braskem’s mining operations, and Braskem estimated that moving the residents would cost the Company an additional R$850 million in possible payments to those residents, with another additional R$750 million in expenses to “definitively” shut down Braskem’s salt mining operations.On this news, Braskem’s ADS price fell $0.59 per share, or 6.20%, to close at $8.93 per share on July 9, 2020.The complaint, filed on August 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies.  Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Braskem’s salt mining operations were unsafe and presented a significant danger to surrounding areas, including nearly two thousand properties; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk that Braskem would be subjected to remedial liabilities, including, but not limited to, increased governmental and/or regulatory oversight or enforcement, significant monetary and reputational damage, and/or the permanent closure of one or more of its salt mining operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from Braskem’s salt mining operations were unsustainable; (iv) Braskem downplayed the true scope and severity of the Company’s liability with respect to its salt mining operations; and (v) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.For more information on the Braskem securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/BAKFastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY)Class Period: May 6, 2020 to August 5, 2020Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020Fastly is the provider of an edge cloud platform. Fastly’s edge cloud platform purportedly enables “customers to create great digital experiences quickly, securely, and reliably by processing, serving, and securing [its] customers’ applications as close to their end-users as possible.”On August 5, 2020, Fastly held its second quarter (“Q2”) 2020 earnings conference call. During the call, defendants disclosed that ByteDance, the Chinese company that operates the wildly popular mobile app TikTok, was Fastly’s largest customer in Q2 2020, and that TikTok represented about 12% of Fastly’s revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2020.This news shocked the market, as TikTok had been under heavy scrutiny by U.S. officials and others since at least late 2019 due to fears that the data it collects from its users could be accessed by the Chinese government. Indeed, on July 31, 2020, President Trump announced a plan to ban TikTok in the U.S. over national security concerns. As Fastly’s Chief Executive Officer admitted on the Q2 2020 earnings call, “any ban of the TikTok app by the US would create uncertainty around our ability to support this customer[,]” and “the loss of this customer’s traffic would have an impact on our business.”On this news, Fastly’s share price fell $19.28, or approximately 17.7% from the previous trading day’s closing price of $108.92, to close at $89.64 on August 6, 2020.Fastly’s share price continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on August 7, 2020.The complaint, filed on August 27, 2020, alleges that during the Class Period defendants knowingly and/or recklessly made false and/or misleading statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Fastly’s largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) that there was a material risk that Fastly’s business would be adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) that, as a result, 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 Fastly securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/FSLYAbout Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. 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.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com