RADNOR, Pa.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–lt;a href=”https://twitter.com/search?q=%24BV&src=ctag” target=”_blank”gt;$BVlt;/agt; lt;a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/classaction?src=hash” target=”_blank”gt;#classactionlt;/agt;–The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
BrightView Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BV) (“BrightView”) on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired BrightView common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the initial public offering completed on or around
July 2, 2018 (the “IPO”).
BrightView investors who purchased securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO may, no later than June 14,
2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class.
Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or request additional information about this litigation are encouraged
to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check attorneys James Maro, Jr. or
Adrienne Bell at (888) 299-7706 (toll free) or online at: www.ktmc.com/brightview-bv-securities-class-action.
According to the complaint, BrightView provides commercial landscaping
services in the United States, operating through two segments:
Maintenance Services and Development Services. On July 2, 2018,
BrightView completed its IPO. The shares sold in the offering were
registered pursuant to BrightView’s Registration Statement on a Form S-1
(the “Registration Statement”), which was declared effective by the SEC
on June 27, 2018. BrightView additionally filed its final prospectus
dated June 27, 2018 on a Form 424B4 with the SEC on June 29, 2018 (the
“Prospectus”). The Registration Statement and Prospectus are
collectively referred to as the “Offering Documents.”
The complaint alleges that, on August 8, 2018, after market-close,
BrightView issued a press release announcing its financial and operating
results for the third quarter of 2018. Despite reporting “strong third
quarter results” and “record revenues,” BrightView reported that
“[r]evenues from the Development Services segment declined 5.7%”
compared to the prior year “due to winding down production on certain
large projects that reached substantial completion during the quarter,
coupled with the timing of commencing work on new projects.” Then, on
August 9, 2018, BrightView filed its quarterly report for the same
period with the SEC, reiterating the results previously announced in its
earlier press release. Therein, BrightView disclosed that its
Maintenance Services revenue was negatively impacted by its “Managed
Exit” strategy. The Managed Exit strategy was BrightView’s purported
corporate strategy to allow certain “underperforming contracts” to
expire upon maturity or renegotiate the contracts to provide BrightView
with more favorable terms. Following this news, BrightView’s common
stock price fell $2.30 per share, or over 10%, to close at $19.90 per
share on August 9, 2018.
On February 7, 2019, BrightView issued a press release announcing its
financial and operating results for the first quarter 2019. The press
release attributed BrightView’s disappointing financial and operating
results to, inter alia, its “strategic Managed Exit initiative and other
operating conditions.” Additionally, in its quarterly report filed with
the SEC that same day, BrightView advised investors that the
underperforming contracts part of the Managed Exit strategy accounted
for a year-over-year quarterly decline of $10.8 million in landscape
services revenues. Following this news, BrightView’s common stock price
declined $1.51 per share, or over 10%, to close at $13.23 per share on
February 7, 2019, representing a decline of nearly 40% from the IPO
price.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements in the Offering Documents and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) a material portion of BrightView’s contracts were
underperforming and/or represented undesirable costs to BrightView; (ii)
as a result of the foregoing, BrightView would implement a “Managed
Exit” strategy to end its low margin and non-profitable contracts with
customers; (iii) this “Managed Exit” strategy would negatively impact
BrightView’s future revenue throughout 2018, and would continue to do so
well into fiscal year 2019; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.
BrightView investors may, no
later than June 14, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal
law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of
institutional and individual investors from the United States and around
the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government
and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more
information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
Contacts
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne
Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(888)
299-7706 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
[email protected]
