Labaton Sucharow LLP Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Array Technologies, Inc. and Related Parties
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / May 15, 2021 / Labaton Sucharow LLP (“Labaton Sucharow”) announces that Plymouth County Retirement Association has filed a class action lawsuit against Array Technologies, Inc. on May 14, 2021. No. 21-cv-2396 (SDNY) (the “Action”) on behalf of its customer, Plymouth County Retirement Association (“PCRA”) v Array Technologies, Inc. (“Array” or the “Company”) and other related parties Persons (collectively “Defendants”).
The lawsuit seeks claims under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased Array or otherwise acquired, published securities between October 14, 2020 and May 11, 2021 inclusive (the “Class Period”) that were damaged thereby. The Exchange Act claims are made against Array and certain officers of the company.
Separately, the lawsuit seeks claims under Sections 11, 12 (a) (2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) on behalf of any person or entity who has purchased or otherwise acquired Array common stock pursuant to and have / or are traceable to the company’s IPO in October 2020, the Company’s second offering price in December 2020, or the company’s second offering price in March 2021 (collectively the “Offers”) and have been damaged as a result.
In connection with the Offerings, Array filed registration forms and prospectuses with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“Offering Materials”). The Securities Act claims are directed against Array, investment banks who acted as subscribers to the Offerings, and directors and officers of the Company who signed the Offerings. ATI Investment Parent, LLC, an Array shareholder who has sold significant amounts of Array shares in the Offerings, is also named as a defendant in connection with claims under the Securities Act.
The story goes on
Array is an Albuquerque, New Mexico-based manufacturer of floor mounting systems for solar energy projects. The company’s main products are commonly referred to as “trackers”. Trackers are designed to move solar panels throughout the day to keep them optimally aligned with the sun, which greatly increases their energy production.
In relation to the Exchange Act claims, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the class period, defendants made false and misleading statements for omitting and otherwise failing to disclose prices of certain goods such as steel from the first quarter of 2020, more than doubling, and the array faced rising freight costs. As a result, the company’s positive statements about its business and operations lacked a solid foundation.
With respect to the Securities Act claims, the lawsuit alleges that the offer documents contained false and misleading statements because they omitted and otherwise failed to disclose that prior to the offers, an increase in the cost of goods and freight would adversely affect the company’s business had affected and operations.
On May 11, 2021, just months after the deals, the truth about these soaring costs and its negative impact on the company’s bottom line was revealed. At that point, Array reported first quarter 2021 results that fell short of earnings analysts’ expectations and withdrew its outlook for full year 2021 as steel and freight costs rose. Analysts immediately downgraded their ratings on Array stocks, citing concerns about the company’s falling profit margins. For example in a Barclays report:
Analysts downgraded Array stock from “overweight” to “underweight” highlighting concerns over volume, margins and profitability. In the news, Array’s stock price fell $ 11.49 per share, or 46.1 percent, to close at $ 13.46 per share on May 12, 2021.
If you: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired Array Securities during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired Array Common Shares under any of the Offers and / or were thereby traceable and damaged as a result, You are a member of the “Class” and may apply for appointment as lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff’s motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by July 13, 2021 at the latest. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the class. You do not need to apply for a lead plaintiff to participate in a class restore in the promotion. If you are a class member and there is a recovery for the class, you can participate in that recovery as an absent class member. You can keep an attorney of your choice to represent you in the action.
If you would like to consider serving as the lead plaintiff or if you have any questions regarding this lawsuit, you can contact David J. Schwartz, Esq. from Labaton Sucharow at (800) 321-0476 or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
PCRA is represented by Labaton Sucharow, who represents many of the largest pension funds in the US and internationally with total assets under management of more than $ 2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized by courts and colleagues for his outstanding achievements and is consistently represented in leading industry publications. The offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE and Washington, DC. For more information on Labaton Sucharow, please visit www.labaton.com. You can view a copy of the complaint here.
SOURCE: Labaton Sucharow LLP
View source version on accesswire.com: