NEW YORK, Feb. 12, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Attorney Advertising -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, specifically relating to its financial performance and its "innovation," "operational improvement efforts," "new products," and "continued investments in sales and marketing." The complaint alleges that: (1) Dentsply was engaged in an anticompetitive scheme among its three primary distributors that suppressed competition and artificially inflated the price of Dentsply's products; and (2) Dentsply engaged in "channel-stuffing" which rendered the Company's reported sales, financial results and guidance materially false and misleading.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Goldman Sachs participated in a fraud and money-laundering scheme in collusion with 1Malaysia Development Bhd., a Malaysian state-owned investment fund; (2) the foregoing conduct, when revealed, would foreseeably subject Goldman Sachs to heightened regulatory investigations and enforcement; and (3) as a result, Goldman Sachs’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Allergan concealed from investors the fact that the Company's CE Mark for its textured breast implants and tissue expanders was expiring in Europe.
The Complaint alleges that JA Solar investors were misled into accepting consideration from the Merger that was well below fair value for their JA Solar shares. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (1) JA Solar’s Proxy materials misrepresented and/or omitted material information that was necessary for Company shareholders to make an informed decision concerning whether to vote in favor of the Merger; (2) contrary to the representations in the Proxy, JA Solar already had plans to relist its shares in China prior to closing the Merger and its delisting from the NASDAQ; and (3) consequently, the Company’s statements about its business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.