Get Cash Back and $0 Commissions + The Power of TradeStation
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against GoodRx, Exscientia, Malibu Boats, and Globe Life and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
Globe Newswire 11-Jun-2024 9:00 PM
NEW YORK, June 11, 2024 (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 GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:GDRX), Exscientia plc. (NASDAQ:EXAI), Malibu Boats, Inc. (NASDAQ:MBUU), and Globe Life, Inc. (NYSE:GL). 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.
Class Period: September 23, 2020 - November 8, 2022 (Common Stock Only)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 21, 2024
GoodRx operates a price comparison platform for prescription drugs which, in many cases, offers consumers access to lower prices (through discount codes and coupons) for their medications. GoodRx generates most of its revenue from contracts with pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") who agree to pay GoodRx a commission on prescription drug purchases made by consumers who use GoodRx's discount codes and coupons at participating pharmacies. GoodRx also generates a portion of its revenue from subscription plans like the "Kroger Rx Savings Club," which provides "access [to] lower prescription prices at" pharmacies operated by The Kroger Co. ("Kroger").
In connection with GoodRx's initial public offering on September 23, 2020, and throughout the remainder of the Class Period, Defendants continuously touted the Company's strong relationships with pharmacies as a significant element of its business plan. Among other things, GoodRx repeatedly highlighted the Kroger Rx Savings Club. Critically, however, Defendants never informed investors of the material risk that Kroger, which accounted for nearly 25% of GoodRx's prescription transactions revenue, could unilaterally refuse to accept GoodRx's discounts.
According to the filed complaint, investors began to learn the truth about the risks of GoodRx's over-dependence on Kroger (including the risk that, notwithstanding the Kroger Rx Savings Club, Kroger could unilaterally refuse to accept GoodRx's discounts) on May 9, 2022, when GoodRx revealed that, late in the first quarter of 2022, "a grocery chain had taken actions that impacted acceptance of discounts from most PBMs for a subset of drugs" and that this "impacted the acceptance of many PBM discounts for certain drugs at this grocer's stores." GoodRx further acknowledged that this disruption "could have an estimated revenue impact of roughly $30 million" in the second quarter of 2022—resulting in the Company announcing disappointing second quarter 2022 revenue guidance of only about $190 million.
On this news, the price of GoodRx common stock plummeted $2.78 per share, or more than 25%, from a close of $10.75 per share on May 9, 2022, to close at $7.97 per share on May 10, 2022.
On November 8, 2022, Defendants provided further information on the severity of the revenue impact from the Kroger disruption—with the Company estimating that the "impact of the grocer issue on third quarter [prescription transactions revenue] was approximately $40 million" and that the Company expected "a combined $45 million to $50 million estimated impact to prescription transactions revenue" for the fourth quarter of 2022. Defendants further acknowledged that the Company was seeking to enter into contractual relationships with pharmacies to prevent similar disruptions from occurring in the future.
On this news, the price of GoodRx common stock declined an additional $1.18 per share, or more than 22%, from a close of $5.24 per share on November 8, 2022, to close at $4.06 per share on November 9, 2022.
The Complaint further alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (1) while Kroger accounted for less than 5% of the pharmacies accepting GoodRx discounts, Kroger was responsible for nearly 25% of GoodRx's total prescription transactions revenue (the Company's primary revenue stream); and (2) Kroger could unilaterally cease accepting GoodRx discounts, cutting off some or all of GoodRx's revenues for purchases at Kroger's pharmacies; and (3) as a result, Defendants' representations about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Exscientia in an artificial intelligence ("AI") driven Pharma-tech company that engages in the design and develop differentiated medicines for diseases with high unmet patient needs.
At all relevant times, the Company purported to "maintain[] the highest standards of business conduct and ethics" and, to that end, adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics which applies to all of its employees, officers and directors, including former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Director Defendant Andrew Hopkins ("Hopkins"), former Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") Defendant David Nicholson ("Nicholson"), and all other executive and senior officers.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendant Hopkins had engaged in improper relationships with employees that were inconsistent with the Company's standards and values; (ii) Defendant Nicholson had prior knowledge of Defendant Hopkins's relationships and had improperly addressed Hopkins's misconduct without consulting the Board; (iii) the Company's maintenance and enforcement of its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics was inadequate to safeguard against the foregoing conduct; (iv) the foregoing failures subjected the Company to a heightened risk of disruptive leadership transitions and/or reputational harm; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On February 13, 2024, Exscientia issued a press release "announc[ing] that its Board of Directors (the ‘Board') has decided to terminate the employment of [Defendant] Hopkins as the Company's [CEO] and Principal Executive Officer, and to remove Dr. Hopkins from his role as an Executive Director of the Board, in each case for cause and effective immediately." The press release further revealed that the Board's decision was taken following an investigation which found that Defendant Hopkins had "engaged in relationships with two employees that the Board determined were inappropriate and inconsistent with the Company's standards and values." In addition, the press release indicated that during the course of the investigation, the Board learned that "[Defendant] Nicholson [. . .] had prior knowledge of the existence of the earlier of Dr. Hopkins' relationships and had addressed the situation directly, and with the involvement of other outside counsel, rather than in consultation with the Board," and "[f]ollowing discussions with the Board, on February 12, 2024 Dr. Nicholson tendered his resignation from his positions with the Company."
On this news, Exscientia's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or 22.9%, to close at $5.79 per share on February 13, 2024.
On February 20, 2024, before the market opened, Malibu Boats announced the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") had "mutually agreed" to cease to serve as CEO.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.33 or 9.1%, to close at $43.15 per share on February 20, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on April 11, 2024, after the market closed, Malibu Boats revealed that Tommy's Boats ("Tommy's") had filed a complaint against the Company. After the Company disclosed news of the lawsuit, various media outlets publicized the Complaint, which alleged the Company "engaged in an elaborate scheme" to "pump nearly $100 million" worth of inventory into Tommy dealerships since late 2022 to "artificially inflate Malibu's sales performance." According to the Complaint, Malibu Boats forced the Company's highest priced, highest margin, slow moving "Malibu" branded inventory (as opposed to the lower-margin, but faster moving "Axis" brand) onto Tommy's dealerships. Malibu Boats recognizes a sale when the dealer takes delivery of the boat, regardless of whether it has been sold to the end user. As a result, this scheme enabled the Company to represent that it experienced strong wholesale demand and sales, even as sales to the end user declined. The Complaint revealed that, approximately one week prior to the Company announcing the separation with Defendant Springer, certain "Malibu stakeholders" admitted to the principal of Tommy's dealerships that Malibu was in fact "intentionally pumping Tommy's full of inventory." The Complaint further alleged the Company withheld payment of incentives from Tommy's for nearly two years before suddenly cutting ties with Tommy's.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.34, or 7.99%, to close at $38.48 per share on April 12, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's common stock price continued to fall the next consecutive trading session, falling $2.34 or 6% to close at $36.14 per share on April 15, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action 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 Malibu Boats engaged in an "elaborate scheme to over manufacture and pump nearly $100 million of its highest priced, highest margin, slow moving boat inventory into fifteen Tommy's dealerships"; (2) that, as a result, the Company artificially inflated Malibu's sales performance, market share, and stock value; (3) that the Company was withholding certain incentives and rebates from its dealers; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company faced substantial risk of litigation from one of its top dealers, Tommy's; (5) that the Company's CEO departed due to this role in this scheme; and (6) 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.
Class Period: May 8, 2019 - April 10, 2024 (Common Stock Only)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 1, 2024
Globe Life, an insurance company, offers various insurance products, including low-cost life insurance policies that provide comparatively lower payouts. Operating through its subsidiaries, American Income Life Insurance Company (AIL) being the largest, Globe Life has been accused of engaging in fraudulent activities.
According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period, particularly regarding Globe Life's premium revenue growth, attributed to increased agent count and productivity. The Company's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which emphasized an inclusive and welcoming environment with strict policies against violence, illegal drugs, and threatening behavior, is alleged to have been misrepresented.
On April 11, 2024, an investment research firm published a report exposing allegations of widespread insurance fraud by Globe Life since 2017. The report claimed that the company's subsidiaries underwrote policies for deceased and fictitious individuals while adding policies to customers' accounts without their consent. The research also revealed evidence of a hostile workplace environment marred by sexual harassment, drug use, and sexual assault. According to the filed complaint, these revelations led to a significant decline in the price of Globe Life common stock.
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.
