NEW YORK, July 22, 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 NIKE, Inc. (NYSE: NKE), FutureFuel Corp. (NYSE: FF), SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation (NASDAQ: ICU) and Bolt Biotherapeutics (NASDAQ: BOLT). 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.
NIKE, Inc. (NYSE: NKE)
Class Period: March 19, 2021 – March 21, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 19, 2024
The Class Period begins on March 19, 2021, in connection with NIKE’s announcement of its financial results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, and related investor earnings call. In connection with these results, Defendant John J. Donahoe II (the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer) touted that “NIKE continues to deeply connect with consumers all over the world driven by our strong competitive advantages” and that “[o]ur strategy is working, as we accelerate innovation and create the seamless, premium marketplace of the future.” Defendant Matthew Friend (the Company’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) similarly assured investors that “NIKE’s brand momentum is as strong as ever and we are driving focused growth against our largest opportunities.” On the related investor earnings call, Defendant Donahoe emphasized NIKE’s “tremendous success in digital” and that “NIKE’s digital transformation remains a unique advantage.”
The complaint alleges that Investors began to learn the truth about NIKE’s inability to generate sustainable revenue growth on June 27, 2022, when the Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2022 financial results after market close. NIKE announced that quarterly revenues declined 1% year-over-year and quarterly wholesale revenues declined 7% year-over-year. However, Defendant Donahoe reassured investors that NIKE’s “strategy is working” by creating value through its “competitive advantages, including [its] pipeline of innovative product[s] and expanding digital leadership.” He further asserted that NIKE’s investments in digital and other areas prompted Defendants to be “very confident in our long-term strategy and our growth outlook.” On this news, the price of NIKE Class B common stock declined $7.72 per share, or nearly 7%, from a close of $110.50 per share on June 27, 2022, to close at $102.78 per share on June 28, 2022.
Three months later, on September 29, 2022, investors learned more when NIKE reported its first quarter fiscal year 2023 financial earnings after market close. In spite of modest revenue growth, NIKE reported that its net income declined 22% year-over-year and that diluted earnings per share similarly declined 20% year-over-year. NIKE also reported a significant reduction in gross margin (down 220 basis points year-over-year) driven by the disposal of excess inventory—which was 44% higher than in the first quarter of 2022. On this news, the price of NIKE Class B common stock declined $12.21 per share, or nearly 13%, from a close of $95.33 per share on September 29, 2022, to close at $83.12 per share on September 30, 2022.
Notwithstanding the Company’s struggles with NIKE Direct and its direct-to-consumer strategy, Defendants continued to tout the purported strength of NIKE’s business model over the next year, telling investors that NIKE’s “competitive advantages continue to fuel our momentum” and that NIKE is primed to “leverage our competitive advantages to not only gain share but also grow the market.”
On December 21, 2023, however, investors learned more about the competitive pressures facing NIKE when the Company issued its second quarter fiscal year 2024 financial results and held its related investor earnings call after market close. Defendant Friend admitted that NIKE’s “total retail sales across the marketplace fell short of our expectations,” and that NIKE’s digital platforms lost consumer traffic to competitors because of “higher promotional activity across the marketplace.” Given these challenges, Defendant Friend revealed that NIKE was “adjusting [its] channel growth plans for the remainder of the year” and “identifying opportunities across the company to deliver up to $2 billion in cumulative cost savings over the next 3 years.” On this news, the price of NIKE Class B common stock declined $14.49 per share, or nearly 12%, from a close of $122.53 per share on December 21, 2023, to close at $108.04 per share on December 22, 2023.
Finally, on March 21, 2024, NIKE announced its third quarter fiscal year 2024 financial results after market close, revealing a 3% year-over-year decline in revenue in its Europe, Middle East, and Africa segment, a 3% year-over-year decline in NIKE Digital revenue, and scant quarterly revenue growth of approximately 0.4% year-over-year in NIKE Direct. On the related investor earnings call held that same day, Defendant Donahoe admitted that “NIKE is not performing [to its] potential” even though moments earlier he claimed that “Q3 performed in line with our expectations.” Moreover, Defendant Donahoe revealed the Company’s decision to reduce reliance on its direct-to-consumer strategy and “lean in with our wholesale partners to elevate our brand and grow the total marketplace.” According to Defendant Donahoe, NIKE made a “reinvestment with our wholesale partners, so we bring a more holistic offense that grows the market and gets in the path of our consumer.” Furthermore, Defendant Friend revealed that NIKE was “prudently planning for revenue in the first half of the fiscal year [2025] to be down low single digits” as Defendants “shift our product portfolio toward newness and innovation.” On this news, the price of NIKE Class B common stock declined $6.96 per share, or nearly 7%, from a close of $100.82 per share on March 21, 2024, to close at $93.86 per share on March 22, 2024.
For more information on the NIKE class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/NKE
FutureFuel Corp. (NYSE: FF)
Class Period: August 10, 2023 – May 10, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2024
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) FutureFuel did not have adequate internal controls; (2) FutureFuel’s financial statements were misstated; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.
For more information on the FutureFuel class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FF
SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation (NASDAQ: ICU)
Class Period: October 31, 2022 – March 26, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 3, 2024
On April 22, 2022, the Company, then still operating as a SPAC, and SeaStar Medical, Inc. (“Legacy SeaStar”), a medical technology company developing extracorporeal therapies to reduce the consequences of excessive inflammation on vital organs, jointly announced that they had entered into a merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”). As contemplated under the Merger Agreement, the combined company would be known as “SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation” and would operate under the same management team as Legacy SeaStar, with all Legacy SeaStar shares owned by Legacy SeaStar’s existing equity holders to be converted into Class A Common Stock of the combined company (the “Merger”).
The Company and Legacy SeaStar touted the overall prospects of the combined company following the Merger, asserting that Legacy SeaStar had an enterprise value of approximately $85 million, while highlighting Legacy SeaStar’s Selective Cytopheretic Device (“SCD”) for the treatment of hyperinflammation and the SCD’s regulatory and commercial prospects. For example, the companies announced that Legacy SeaStar intended to submit an application for its SCD for approval with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) under the Humanitarian Device Exemption (“HDE”) to commence commercialization for the treatment of pediatric acute kidney injury (“AKI”). Moreover, the companies announced that the Merger had already been unanimously approved by both Legacy SeaStar and the Company’s Boards of Directors and that the holders of a majority of Legacy SeaStar’s voting power had likewise already approved the Merger, with the Merger subject to final approval by stockholders of the Company and other customary closing conditions.
On July 20, 2022, the Company and Legacy SeaStar jointly announced that Legacy SeaStar had submitted an application under the HDE (the “HDE Application”) to the FDA for use of Legacy SeaStar’s SCD for critically ill children with AKI, which purportedly “follow[ed a] successful pilot study demonstrating the SCD was safe with probable clinical benefits for pediatric patients[.]”
On October 17, 2022, the Company, Legacy SeaStar, and Vellar Opportunity Fund SPV LLC – Series 4 (“Vellar”) entered into an agreement (the “Prepaid Forward Agreement”) for an equity prepaid forward transaction. The terms of the Prepaid Forward Agreement permitted Vellar to purchase through a broker in the open market shares of Class A common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, of the Company (together with the shares of common stock of the post-Merger Company) from holders of those shares, other than the Company or affiliates of the Company.
On October 18, 2022, following purported positive regulatory developments for the SCD, as announced by the Company and Legacy SeaStar following the unveiling of the Merger, the Company’s stockholders voted to approve the Merger.
On October 28, 2022, the Company and Legacy SeaStar consummated the Merger pursuant to the Merger Agreement, whereby a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, LMF Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub”), merged with and into Legacy SeaStar, with Legacy SeaStar surviving that merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. As a result of the Merger, Legacy SeaStar’s business, operations, and management became the Company’s business, operations, and management, and the Company renamed itself “SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation.”
The following trading day, October 31, 2022, the Company’s common stock and warrants began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbols “ICU” and “ICUCW,” respectively.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SeaStar and/or Legacy SeaStar had deficient compliance controls and procedures related to the HDE Application; (ii) accordingly, there were deficiencies with the HDE Application, the FDA was unlikely to approve the HDE Application in its present form, and the SCD’s regulatory prospects were overstated; (iii) the Company had downplayed the true scope and severity of deficiencies in its financial controls and procedures, while overstating Defendants’ efforts to remediate the same; (iv) accordingly, SeaStar had failed to properly account for the classification of certain outstanding warrants and the Prepaid Forward Agreement; (v) as a result, SeaStar was likely to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements; (vi) accordingly, SeaStar’s post-Merger business and financial prospects were overstated; and (vii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 9, 2023, SeaStar announced that it had received a letter from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the FDA, rejecting the Company’s HDE application for its pediatric SCD because “the application [wa]s not approvable in its current form[.]” SeaStar’s Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Eric Schlorff (“Schlorff”), also disclosed that the Company had engaged in “a series of [purported] collaborative meetings and correspondence over the past 10 months” with the FDA, had made repeated responses “to the Agency’s recommendations,” and that there were “current deficiencies cited by the Agency in their letter[.]”
On this news, SeaStar’s stock price fell $0.77 per share, or 39.69%, to close at $1.17 per share on May 10, 2023.
Then, on March 27, 2024, SeaStar announced that it would restate its financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, as well as for the interim periods ended March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023, and September 30, 2023 (the “Affected Periods”). The Company disclosed that the restatement would impact the accounting treatment and classification of certain outstanding warrants and the Prepaid Forward Agreement. Defendant Schlorff further disclosed that “[t]he restatement . . . is related to the reporting of non-cash accounting items,” noting that “[w]e pursued a [SPAC] as our route to become a public company in late 2022 due to the challenging market conditions at that time,” but that, “[m]any SPACs, including ours, relied on a host of complex financial instruments” and, “[u]nfortunately, we determined that certain complex financial instruments required accounting treatment that differed from our previous judgment, which led to the need for a restatement.”
On this news, SeaStar’s stock price fell approximately $0.04 per share, or 4.84%, to close at approximately $0.71 per share on March 27, 2024.
For more information on the SeaStar class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ICU
Bolt Biotherapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: BOLT)
Class Period: February 5, 2021 – May 14, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 3, 2024
According to the complaint, 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) BDC-1001 was less effective than the Company had represented to investors and was in fact unlikely to meet its pre-defined success criteria; (ii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the clinical and/or commercial prospects of Bolt’s product pipeline, on which the Company primarily relies to sustain its business model; (iii) all of the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened risk of disruptive leadership transitions and substantial workforce reduction; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Bolt class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/BOLT
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.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
