NEW YORK, July 12, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Attorney Advertising -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. 

A. O. Smith Corporation (NYSE: AOS)
Class Period: July 26, 2016 - May 16, 2019
Deadline: July 29, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/aos
The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) A. O. Smith had undisclosed business connections and entanglements with Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain (“UTP”) through which it funneled up to 75% of its China product sales; (2) A.O. Smith had used UTP to engage in channel stuffing by artificially inflating inventories purportedly sold through distributors that were not based on consumer demand, thereby approximately doubling the normal level of inventory at such distributors; (3) A. O. Smith had used its UTP relationship to artificially inflate the sales figures it reported to investors by as much as 8% and to conceal worsening sales trends that A. O. Smith was experiencing in China; (4) A.O. Smith’s sales growth had been primarily in lower margin products as its higher priced products were being undercut by competition in “second-tier” Chinese cities, causing the Company to experience significant market pressures; (5) A. O. Smith had increased its cash reserves in China to over $530 million in furtherance of its channel stuffing and sales manipulation scheme, encumbering A. O. Smith’s ability to repatriate the cash for use for capital expenditures; and (6) as a result, A. O. Smith’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Metro Bank PLC (OTCMKT: MBNKF)
Class Period: March 6, 2018 - May 1, 2019
Deadline: July 29, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/mbnkf
The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Metro Bank misclassified the risk terms of many of its loans; (2) accordingly, Metro Bank failed to maintain sufficient capital; (3) this conduct would lead to investigations by the Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct Authority; (4) this conduct would also lead to the reduction of deposits at Metro Bank from larger commercial and partnership clients; and (5) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ASNA)
Class Period: September 16, 2015 - June 8, 2017
Deadline: August 6, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/asna
The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ascena’s acquisition of ANN, Inc., the parent company of Ann Taylor and LOFT, was a complete disaster for the Company as ANN’s operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to the public; (2) to mask the true condition of ANN, defendants improperly delayed recognizing an impairment charge to the value of ANN’s goodwill and, as a result, Ascena’s reported income and assets were materially overstated and the Company’s financial results were not prepared in conformity with GAAP; (3) many of the brands acquired in the ANN acquisition were in steep decline and were also materially overvalued on Ascena’s Class Period financial statement; and (4) as a result, defendants’ positive statements about Ascena’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com