Market Newsdesk

NEW YORK, Dec. 16, 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 Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG), Biogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB), JOYY, Inc. (NASDAQ: YY), and Berry Corporation (NASDAQ: BRY). 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.

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG)

Class Period: October 23, 2015 to June 12, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021

Cabot was incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. Cabot is an independent oil and gas company that explores for, exploits, develops, produces, and markets oil and gas properties in the U.S.

Cabot primarily focuses its oil and gas efforts on the Marcellus Shale located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Cabot’s gas procuring activities in Pennsylvania have been the subject of controversy for over a decade, with the Company repeatedly denying any responsibility for environmental damage observed in the state.

On July 26, 2019, Cabot filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, reporting the Company’s financial and operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 (the “2Q19 10-Q”). The 2Q19 10-Q disclosed that the Company had received two proposed Consent Order and Agreements (“CO&As”) related to two Notices of Violation (“NOVs”) it had received from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PaDEP”) back in June and November, 2017, respectively, for failure to prevent the migration of gas into fresh groundwater sources in the area surrounding Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.

Following the release of the 2Q19 10-Q, Cabot’s stock price fell $2.63 per share, or 12.07%, to close at $19.16 per share on July 26, 2019.

Then, on June 15, 2020, during pre-market hours, following a grand jury investigation, the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office charged Cabot with fifteen criminal counts arising from its failure to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania’s water supplies through stray gas migration.

On this news, Cabot’s stock price fell $0.67 per share, or 3.34%, to close at $19.40 per share on June 15, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 13, 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) Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related to those controls and procedures; (ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania’s water supplies through stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased reputational and financial harm; (iv) Cabot continually downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to such environmental matters; and (v) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Cabot Oil & Gas class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/COG

Biogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB)

Class Period: October 22, 2019 to November 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021

On November 6, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled “FDA advisory panel convenes to discuss whether Biogen Alzheimer’s drug should be approved” which stated that “Biogen shares were halted ahead of the advisory panel meeting.” Later on November 6, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled “U.S. FDA panel votes cannot ignore unsuccessful trial data on Biogen Alzheimer’s drug.”

On this news, Biogen’s stock price fell $92.64 per share, or 28%, to close at $236.26 per share on November 9, 2020, the next trading day.

The complaint, filed on November 13, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the larger dataset did not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab’s effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did not and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab’s effectiveness; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab’s effectiveness; (4) the data provided by the Company to the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support finding efficacy of aducanumab; and (5) as a result, 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 Biogen securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/cases/BIIB

JOYY, Inc. (NASDAQ: YY)

Class Period: April 28, 2016 to November 18, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021

On November 18, 2020, while the market was open, Muddy Waters Research published a report alleging that JOYY, among other things, had: (i) reported fraudulent revenue; (ii) component businesses that were a fraction of the size that it reports; and (iii) acquired BIGO as part of a scam that benefited corporate insiders.

On this news, JOYY’s ADRs fell $26.53 per share, or 26.4%, to close at $73.66 per share on November 18, 2020.

The complaint, filed on November 20, 2020, alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were bots; (2) the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the Company overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company’s acquisition of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and (5) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

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

Berry Corporation (NASDAQ: BRY)

Class Period: (a) Common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018 (the “IPO” or “Offering”); or (b) Berry securities purchased between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 (the “Class Period”).

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 21, 2021

On June 29, 2018, the Company filed its Registration Statement on Form S-l for the IPO, which, after an amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on July 25, 2018 (the “Registration Statement”). On or around July 26, 2018, Berry conducted the IPO, upon which the Company began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select market (“NASDAQ”), issuing 13 million shares of Berry common stock at $14 per share, generating over $138 million in proceeds before expenses. On July 27, 2018 Berry filed its Prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC (the “Prospectus” and, collectively with the Registration Statement, the “Offering Documents”).

On November 3, 2020, Berry reported its financial and operating results for the third quarter of 2020. Among other results, Berry reported non-GAAP EPS and revenue that both fell short of estimates. In addition, Berry reported that during the quarter, “the Company undertook certain operational improvements that caused temporary reductions in our production. Notably, we performed some plugging and abandonment activity that resulted in the temporary shut-in of nearby wells. Additionally, improved steam management reduced overall costs but temporarily increased water disposal and well maintenance needs, resulting in a slight decrease in production.”

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.15 per share, or 5.28%, to close at $2.69 per share on November 4, 2020, representing an 80.78% decline from the IPO price.

The complaint, filed on November 20, 2020, alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Berry had materially overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry’s operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the Company’s productivity and increase costs; (iii) the foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the Company’s revenues; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company’s public statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

For more information on the Berry Corporation class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/BRY

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.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com

 

FLORHAM PARK, N.J., Dec. 16, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: PHAT), a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing novel treatments for gastrointestinal diseases, announced today the pricing of its underwritten public offering of 2,250,000 shares of its common stock at a price to the public of $42.00 per share. All of the shares to be sold in the offering are being sold by Phathom. The gross proceeds to Phathom from the offering, before deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses, are expected to be $94.5 million. In addition, Phathom has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 337,500 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. The offering is expected to close on or about December 21, 2020.

Phathom intends to use the net proceeds from the proposed offering to fund the clinical development of vonoprazan and for working capital and general corporate purposes, including pre-commercial activities.

Jefferies, Evercore ISI, Guggenheim Securities and BMO Capital Markets are acting as joint bookrunning managers for the offering. Needham & Company is acting as lead manager for the offering.

The securities described above are being offered by Phathom pursuant to a shelf registration statement previously filed and declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). When available, copies of the final prospectus supplement and the accompanying prospectus relating to this offering may be obtained from: Jefferies LLC, Attention: Equity Syndicate Prospectus Department, 520 Madison Avenue, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, by telephone at (877) 821-7388 or by email at [email protected]; or from Evercore Group L.L.C., Attention: Equity Capital Markets, 55 East 52nd Street, 36th Floor, New York, NY 10055, by telephone at (888) 474-0200 or by email at [email protected]; or from Guggenheim Securities LLC, Attention: Equity Syndicate Department, 330 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017, by telephone at (212) 518-5548 or by email at [email protected]; or from BMO Capital Markets Corp., 3 Times Square, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Equity Syndicate Department, by telephone at (800) 414-3627, or by email at [email protected]. Electronic copies of the preliminary prospectus supplement and accompanying prospectus were filed with the SEC and are available on the website of the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.

This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to the registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction.

About Phathom

Phathom Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel treatments for gastrointestinal diseases and disorders. Phathom has in-licensed the exclusive rights in the United States, Europe, and Canada to vonoprazan, a novel potassium competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) in late-stage development for the treatment of acid-related disorders.

Forward-Looking Statements

Phathom cautions you that statements contained in this press release regarding matters that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on the company’s current beliefs and expectations. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements relating to Phathom’s expectations of market conditions and the satisfaction of customary closing conditions related to the public offering, the expected closing of the offering and the anticipated use of proceeds therefrom. The inclusion of forward-looking statements should not be regarded as a representation by Phathom that any of its plans will be achieved. Actual results may differ from those set forth in this press release due to the risks and uncertainties inherent in Phathom’s business, including, without limitation: the risks and uncertainties associated with market conditions and the satisfaction of customary closing conditions related to the proposed public offering, the risks and uncertainties inherent in Phathom’s business, including potential delays in the commencement, enrollment and completion of clinical trials; Phathom’s dependence on third parties in connection with product manufacturing, research and preclinical and clinical testing; regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries; and unexpected adverse side effects or inadequate efficacy of vonoprazan that may limit its development, regulatory approval and/or commercialization, or may result in recalls or product liability claims; and the other risks described in the Company’s prior press releases and the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including under the heading “Risk Factors” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and any subsequent filings with the SEC. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof, and Phathom undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date hereof. All forward-looking statements are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement, which is made under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

CONTACTS

Media Contact:

Nick Benedetto
1-877-742-8466
[email protected]

Investor Contact:

Todd Branning
1-877-742-8466
[email protected]

NEW YORK, Dec. 16, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) between February 23, 2016 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important December 23, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for JPMorgan investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the JPMorgan class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1959.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or [email protected] for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) traders at JPMorgan, with the knowledge and consent of their superiors, manipulated the precious metals market by “spoofing,” or placing fake orders to generate the appearance of market demand; (2) JPMorgan had insufficient controls and compliance protocols to enable it to identify and stop the misconduct; (3) JPMorgan’s earnings in the physical commodity market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (5) JPMorgan provided misleading information to CFTC investigators at early stages of the investigation into the misconduct; (6) resolution of the governmental investigation into JPMorgan would result in a record-breaking $920 million fine; and (7) as a result, defendants’ statements about JPMorgan’s 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1959.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at [email protected] or [email protected].

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm’s attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        [email protected]
        [email protected]
        [email protected]
        www.rosenlegal.com

Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, today filed a petitionin the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in Marcus Broadway v. United States. Mr. Broadway is challenging the lower court’s use of “Stinson deference” to sentence him as a “career offender” based on language in interpretive commentary issued by the United States Sentencing Commission that does not appear in the Sentencing Guidelines themselves.

Separately, NCLA also filed an amicus briefwith the Supreme Court today in support of a petition for writ of certiorari in Zimmian Tabb v. United States, which also challenges the use of Stinson deference to interpret the Career Offender Guideline. In both cases, NCLA is asking the Court to rule that judges must not defer to the Commission’s views when interpreting a Guideline, especially when doing so would widen the scope of a Guideline or lengthen a defendant’s sentence.

Throughout his case, Mr. Broadway has maintained that the application of Stinson deference to brand and punish him as a career offender under the Guidelines violated the rule of lenity and Supreme Court precedent. NCLA agrees and contends that the rule of lenity dictates that courts cannot defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous criminal rule.

NCLA argues in its briefs that the growing circuit split on how the Court’s 2019 decision in Kisor v. Wilkie limited Stinson deference has led to unjust inconsistencies in sentencing nationwide. The rule of lenity requires courts to interpret ambiguities in favor of criminal defendants. Under Kisor, courts must apply traditional tools of statutory construction—like lenity—before resorting to deference. The Broadway case deserves the Supreme Court’s attention because the circuits are currently split on whether lenity precedes Stinson deference.

Deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules is unconstitutional—particularly in cases with criminal penalties. Stinson deference can unjustly force people to spend more time in prison than Congress required, which raises serious due-process and separation-of-powers concerns. A judge’s deferring to one of the parties before the court exhibits a bias that violates due process too. Stinson also commands federal judges to abandon their duty to provide independent judgment in violation of Article III and the judicial oath.

NCLA is asking the court to grant Mr. Broadway’s petition along with pending petitions in Tabb v. U.S. and Lovato v. United States, which present substantially similar issues of how and when Stinson deference is appropriate or whether it must be overturned as unconstitutional.

NCLA released the following statements:

“Mr. Broadway faces over 2,000 days in prison beyond the penalty that Congress set for his crime of distributing a small quantity of a controlled substance. Because the Court has sent mixed signals about Stinson deference and the rule of lenity for years now, the circuit courts are divided on the issue. It’s time for the Court to clarify that lenity takes priority over deference and that the Sentencing Commission cannot use its commentary to amend the Sentencing Guidelines.”

— Jared McClain, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

 

“Even though the sentencing guidelines are advisory, courts have accorded the Sentencing Commission—a group of unelected bureaucrats—overwhelming deference in the application of harsh criminal penalties. Stinson deference is directly responsible for scores of unjust sentences across the nation. These petitions give the Court an opportunity to set things right.”

— Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

 

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

 

 

 

###

Judy Pino, Communications Director
New Civil Liberties Alliance
202-869-5218
[email protected]