NEW YORK, Dec. 04, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ: IRBT), Zendesk, Inc. (NYSE: ZEN), PG&E Corporation (NYSE: PCG), and Sealed Air Corporation (NYSE: SEE). 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.

iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ: IRBT)

Class Period: November 21, 2016 to October 22, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2019

On April 23, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot surprised the market by announcing quarterly revenues that were below analyst expectations and also revealed surging inventory levels. In response to this news, iRobot’s stock price fell from $130.57 per share on April 23, 2019, to $100.42 per share on April 24, 2019.

Then, on July 23, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot decreased its full-year earnings forecast. On this news, iRobot’s stock price fell from $89.63 per share on July 23, 2019, to $74.51 per share on July 24, 2019.

Finally, on October 22, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot cut the high end of its revenue expectations for the year, from $1.25 billion to $1.21 billion, and said it rolled back price increases after a “suboptimal” customer response. The Company reported increased inventory levels once again, with third quarter 2019 ending inventory of $248 million or 149 days in inventory (“DII”) compared to the $161 million or 113 DII a year prior. On this news, iRobot’s stock price fell from $54.03 per share on October 22, 2019, to $49.06 per share on October 23, 2019.

The complaint, filed on October 24, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) iRobot’s explosive growth was not based on increased demand, expanding margins, and product innovations, as it claimed, but rather based on channel stuffing; (2) the Company attempted to conceal its actions by acquiring its distributors in Europe and Asia; (3) these acquisitions were designed to clean up the Company’s global inventory and mask falling demand; and (4) as a result, iRobot’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the iRobot class action go to: https://bespc.com/irbt

Zendesk, Inc. (NYSE: ZEN)

Class Period: February 6, 2019 to October 1, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2019

On July 30, 2019, Zendesk announced disappointing financial results for the second quarter of 2019. Additionally, Zendesk disclosed that its sales growth in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa and Asia-Pacific regions “didn’t quite live up to [defendants’] own expectations, and lagg[ed] other regions.” Zendesk blamed a mix of macro and operational issues that had been driving the weakness. With respect to fiscal 2019 guidance, the Company notified that it was “maintaining a prudent view on the year as [defendants] gain[ed] a better understanding of the dynamics, internal and external, in EMEA and APAC,” and that it thus expected ongoing revenue growth of just 30%.

On this news, the price of Zendesk stock declined significantly, falling nearly $10 per share to close at $83.56 per share on July 31, 2019.

Prior to September 24, 2019, a third party alerted Zendesk to the fact that the personally identifiable data of its chat and support accounts had been breached. By September 24, 2019, the Company’s internal investigation had revealed that some 10,000 accounts opened before November 2016 had been breached. On October 2, 2019, Zendesk for the first time publicly disclosed the data breach, stating that the data breach only affected customers who had signed up prior to November 1, 2016.

On this news, the price of Zendesk stock fell another $2.90 per share to close at $69.81 per share on October 2, 2019.

The complaint, filed on October 24, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company’s business, operations, and financial results. Specifically, the Company concealed material information and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Zendesk’s clients had been subject to data breaches dating back to 2016; (b) Zendesk was experiencing slowing demand for its SaaS offerings, particularly in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia, due in large part to political uncertainty and China trade issues there; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, Zendesk’s business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as defendants had led the market to believe during the Class Period. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, the price of Zendesk stock was artificially inflated to more than $93 per share during the Class Period. While Zendesk common stock was trading at these artificially inflated prices, certain of the Company’s officers and/or directors cashed in, selling approximately 409,000 of their personally held Zendesk shares, reaping more than $32.7 million in proceeds.

For more information on the Zendesk class action go to: https://bespc.com/zen

PG&E Corporation (NYSE: PCG)

Class Period: December 11, 2018 to October 11, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2019

On October 12, 2019, the New York Times published an article reporting on PG&E’s efforts to deal with the rolling power cuts it had implemented in California aimed at minimizing wildfire risk. The article reported, among other issues, that “PG&E’s communications and computer systems faltered, and its website went down as customers tried to find out whether they would be cut off or spared.” According to the article, “[a]s the company struggled to tell people what areas would be affected and when, chaos and confusion unspooled outside. Roads and businesses went dark without warning, nursing homes and other critical services scrambled to find backup power and even government agencies calling the company were put on hold for hours.”

On this news, PG&E’s stock price fell $0.35 per share, or 4.36%, to close at $7.67 per share on October 14, 2019.

On October 23, 2019, it was reported that as a last resort to prevent additional wildfires PG&E began shutting off power to 179,000 homes and businesses in 17 northern and central California counties.

On this news, PG&E’s stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 12.2%, to close at $7.20 on October 24, 2019.

The complaint, filed on October 25, 2019, 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) PG&E’s purportedly enhanced wildfire prevention and safety protocols and procedures were inadequate to meet the challenges for which they were ostensibly designed; (ii) as a result, PG&E was unprepared for the rolling power cuts the Company implemented to minimize wildfire risk; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the PG&E class action go to: https://bespc.com/pcg

Sealed Air Corporation (NYSE: SEE)

Class Period: November 5, 2014 to August 6, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 2, 2020

On November 5, 2014 Sealed Air filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2014, which was signed by defendant Stiehl and contained signed certifications by defendants Peribere and Lowe stating that the statements contained therein were accurate and not materially misleading. The Form 10-Q stated that Sealed Air had achieved $59.3 million in net earnings for the quarter.

In subsequent quarterly earnings releases and Forms 10-Q and 10-K, Sealed Air continued to represent that its deductions and accounting treatment of the Settlement were proper and that the Company’s financial results, which had been certified by the Individual defendants, had been fairly and accurately represented in these financial filings in all material respects. In addition, in each Sealed Air Form 10-Q and Form 10-K filed during the Class Period, defendants claimed that the financial statements contained therein were prepared in conformance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”). Sealed Air also continued to cite E&Y’s purported “independence” in recommending that shareholders vote to approve the auditing firm, which shareholders did in every year from 2015 to 2019.

On August 6, 2018, Sealed Air filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2018, which revealed that the Company had received a subpoena from the SEC requesting documents and information concerning the Company’s accounting for income taxes and financial reporting and disclosures. Analysts widely viewed the SEC investigation as relating to the Company’s tax treatment of the Settlement. The SEC investigation severely undermined the Company’s purported defense to the IRS disallowance proceedings.

On this news, the price of Sealed Air stock immediately fell over 5% to close at $41 per share on August 7, 2018. In the days that followed, the price of Sealed Air common stock continued to  decline, falling to just over $30 per share by October 2018.

The complaint, filed on November 1, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of Sealed Air common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Sealed Air common stock. When the truth about Sealed Air’s misconduct was revealed over time, the value of the Company’s stock declined precipitously as the prior artificial inflation no longer propped up the stock’s price. The decline in the price of Sealed Air stock was the direct result of the nature and extent of defendants’ fraud finally being revealed to investors and the market. The timing and magnitude of the share price decline negate any inference that the losses suffered by plaintiff and other members of the Class were caused by changed market conditions, macroeconomic or industry factors, or Company-specific facts unrelated to the defendants’ fraudulent conduct. The economic loss, i.e., damages, suffered by plaintiff and other Class members was a direct result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of the Company’s stock and the subsequent significant decline in the value of the Company’s stock when defendants’ prior misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct were revealed.

For more information on the Sealed Air class action go to: https://bespc.com/see

About 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.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com