NEW YORK, March 24, 2021 (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 fuboTV, Inc. (NYSE: FUBO), Jianpu Technology, Inc. (NYSE: JT), Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX), and Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA). 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.

fuboTV, Inc. (NYSE: FUBO)

Class Period: March 23, 2020 to January 4, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021

The complaint, filed on February 17, 2021, alleges that during the Class Period defendants disseminated false and misleading statements that misrepresented Fubo’s financial health and its operating condition. These misleading statements included representations relating to a variety of Fubo’s business operations and performance metrics, including, among others, Fubo’s ability to grow subscription levels and future profitability, seasonality factors, cost escalations and potentially shrinking addressable market, ability to attract and generate advertising revenue, the Company’s valuation, and its prospects of entering the arena of online sports wagering.

Investors learned the truth gradually through a series of research reports beginning on December 23, 2020. Those reports revealed, among others things, that (i) Fubo’s growth in subscriber and profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge; (ii) Fubo’s offering of products would be subject to cost escalation; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online sports wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo’s data and inventory was not differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve its long-term advertising growth goals; (v) Fubo’s valuation was overstated in light of its total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the acquisition of Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies and internal expertise, and did not expand the Company’s addressable market into sports wagering.

Upon the publication of the research reports, the price of Fubo securities declined 54% from a close of $52.59 on December 23, 2020 to a close of $24.24 on January 4, 2021.

For more information on the fuboTV class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FUBO

Jianpu Technology, Inc. (NYSE: JT)

Class Period: May 29, 2018 to February 16, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021

On February 16, 2021, Jianpu announced the results of its review into “transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation Business Unit” with third-party business entities. The Company concluded that previously reported revenue and associated expenses had been inflated due to “certain transactions [that] involved third-party agents (including both upstream agents and downstream suppliers) with undisclosed relationships and some transactions [that] lacked business substance.” Jianpu stated that it “anticipates the total amount of overstated revenue for the fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to be approximately, RMB 90 million and RMB 164 million, respectively, representing approximately 4.5% and 10.1% of the total revenue previously reported.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.60, or 13%, to close at $3.94 per share on February 16, 2021.

The complaint, filed on February 17, 2021, 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 certain of the Company’s transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation Business Unit involved undisclosed relationships or lacked business substance; (2) that, as a result, Jianpu’s revenue and costs and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019 were overstated; (3) that there were material weaknesses in Jianpu’s internal control over financial reporting; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s fiscal 2018 Form 20-F was reasonably likely to be restated; and (5) 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 Jianpu Technology class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/JT

Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX)

Class Period: November 9, 2020 to February 19, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2021

On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP (“RSM”), resigned “as a result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020” related to the Company’s gift card business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material weakness related to Ebix’s failure to design controls “over the gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to prevent or detect a material misstatement.” In addition, Ebix and RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix’s outside legal counsel in December 2020.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell as much as $20.24, or approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021.

The complaint, filed on February 22, 2021, 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 there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix’s gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in Company’s internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company’s independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix’s outside legal counsel; 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 Ebix class action case go to: https://bespc.com/cases/EBIX

Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA)

Class Period: September 7, 2016 to March 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021

The Class Period begins on September 7, 2016, when Apache, while under immense pressure to show results from its new strategy and reverse its lagging share price, announced the discovery of a new resource play called Alpine High.

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants claimed that Alpine High had valuable oil and gas reserves and promoted Alpine High as the centerpiece of its development business.

The truth about Alpine High and its lack of viability emerged in a series of disclosures between April 2019 and March 2020 that caused Apache’s stock price to decline over 83% from its Class Period high. 

Most recently, on March 16, 2020, a Seeking Alpha article published pre-market explained that Apache was particularly challenged amongst its peers, carrying “the highest debt-to-equity ratio among large-cap independent [exploration and production companies],” and noted that “[t]he company doesn’t have a strong balance sheet” and its “financial health isn’t great.” The article emphasized Apache’s “weak balance sheet marked by high levels of debt” of over $8 billion in 2019, “which translates into a lofty debt-to-equity ratio of almost 250% - the highest among all large-cap independent oil producers.” Regarding Alpine High, the article observed that low gas prices “forced Apache to shift capital away from the wet-gas rich Alpine High play which has been driving the company’s production growth.” The article also noted that “Apache also reduced Alpine High’s value by $1.4 billion.”

Following this news, Apache’s stock price fell $3.61 per share, or approximately 45%, over two trading days, from a close of $8.07 per share on March 13, 2020, to close at $4.46 per share on March 17, 2020.

For more information on the Apache class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/APA

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 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