NEW YORK, Aug. 26, 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 STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA), Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU), Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE: AYX), and American Electric Power Company, Inc. (“AEP) (NYSE: AEP). 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.

STAAR Surgical Company (NAASDAQ: STAA)

Class Period: February 26, 2020 to August 10, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

STAAR designs, develops, manufactures, and sells implantable lenses for the eye and companion delivery systems used to deliver the lenses into the eye. STAAR’s primary products are: (1) “implantable Collamer® lenses,” or “ICLs,” used in refractive surgery; and (2) intraocular lenses, or “IOLs,” used in cataract surgery.

On August 5, 2020, after the markets closed, STAAR announced its financial results for the quarter ended July 3, 2020, reporting a net loss of $0.03 per share, versus net income of $0.08 per share in the prior year quarter, among other things.

On this news, the company’s share price dropped approximately 10%, from a closing share price of $61.81 on August 5, 2020, to a close on August 6, 2020 at $55.86.

On August 11, 2020, analyst J Capital Research Limited published a report stating that “[w]e think STAAR Surgical has overstated sales in China by at least one-third, or $21.6 mln. That would mean that all of the company’s $14 mln in 2019 profit is fake.” J Capital stated that the report was based on “over 75 interviews,” as well as visits to STAAR locations in China and Switzerland.

On this news, STAAR’s stock price sharply declined, closing at $48.25 on August 11, 2020, down approximately 6.2% from its August 10, 2020 closing price of $51.42.

The complaint, filed on August 19, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and that as a result of the foregoing, (4) defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the STAAR class action go to: https://bespc.com/STAA

Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU)

Class Period: April 8, 2016 to August 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

Baidu is the majority owner of iQIYI, Inc. (“iQIYI”).  On April 7, 2020, Wolfpack Research released a report detailing, among other things, how iQIYI had misled investors and failed to disclose pertinent information generally and in its Registration Statement, including: (i) iQIYI overstating its user numbers; (ii) iQIYI inflating its revenues; (iii) iQIYI inflating expenses and prices of assets to conceal its revenue inflation; and (iv) iQIYI misleading financial reporting creating the appearance of a cash generative company.

On this news, Baidu’s ADS price fell $4.46 per ADS, or 4%, to close at $97.33 per ADS on April 8, 2020.

On August 13, 2020, iQIYI announced that the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission sought “the production of certain financial and operating records dating from January 1, 2018, as well as documents related to certain acquisitions and investments that were identified in a report issued by short-seller firm Wolfpack Research in April 2020.”

On this news, Baidu’s ADS price fell $7.83 per ADS, or 6%, to close at $116.74 per ADS on August 14, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 19, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Baidu misrepresented the financial and business condition of iQIYI; (2) iQIYI had inadequate controls; and (3) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Baidu securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/BIDU

Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE: AYX)

Class Period: March 6, 2020 to August 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

On August 6, 2020, the Company announced in a press release its second quarter 2020 financial results, and disappointing growth projections for the third quarter and full year 2020. Therein, Alteryx stated that, for the third quarter, it expected revenue “to be in the range of $111.0 million to $115.0 million, an increase of 7% to 11% year-over-year.” Moreover, for fiscal year 2020, the Company expected revenue “to be in the range of $460.0 million to $465.0 million, an increase of 10% to 11% year-over-year.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $47.62, or over 28%, to close at $121.38 per share on August 7, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The stock price continued to decline over the next trading session by $12.15, or 10%, to close at $109.23 per share on August 10, 2020, representing a cumulative decline of $59.77, or 35%.

The complaint, filed on August 20, 2020, 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 the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) that, as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract new customers; (3) that, as a result and due to the nature of adoption licenses, the Company’s revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) 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 Alteryx securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/AYX-2

American Electric Power Company, Inc. (“AEP”) (NYSE: AEP)

Class Period: November 2, 2016 and July 24, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

On July 25, 2020, the Columbus Dispatch published an article titled “Columbus utility giant AEP funded dark money spending in HB 6 campaign,” reporting on the Company’s actions in connection with “campaigns now at the center of a racketeering and bribery case . . . .”

On this news, shares of AEP shares fell $4.79 per share, or over 5%, to close at $83.26 per share on July 27, 2020, the next trading day.

The complaint, filed on August 20, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company covertly participated in the “the largest public corruption case in Ohio history”; (2) the Company secretly funneled substantial funds to Ohio political organizations and politicians to bribe politicians to pass Ohio House Bill 6, which benefited the Company and its coal-fired generation assets; (3) the Company partially funded a massive, misleading advertising campaign in support of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by passing substantial sums through a web of dark money entities and front companies in order to conceal the Company’s involvement; (4) the Company aided in subverting a citizens’ ballot initiative to repeal HB6; (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ Class Period statements regarding the Company’s regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false and misleading; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company would face increased scrutiny; (7) the Company was subject to undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and financial harm; (8) the bribery scheme would jeopardize the benefits the Company sought by HB6; (9) as opposed to the Company’s repeated public statements regarding a move to clean energy, it sought a dirty energy bailout; (10) as opposed to the Company’s repeated public statements regarding protection of its customers’ interests, the Company sought an extra and state-mandated surcharge on its customers’ bills; and (11) as a result of the foregoing, 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 AEP securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/AEP

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.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com