Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Pegasystems, Humbl, Okta, and Enservco and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
stealing, seeking confidential information from a new employee who recently worked for a competitor, or misrepresenting your identity in hopes of obtaining confidential information.
NEW YORK, June 29, 2022 (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 Pegasystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA), Humbl, Inc. (OTCMKTS: HMBL), Okta, Inc. (NASDAQ: OKTA), and Enservco Corp. (NYSE American: ENSV). 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.
Pegasystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA)
Class Period: May 29, 2020 – May 9, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 18, 2022
PEGA develops customer relationship management software. In its SEC filings during the Class Period, PEGA consistently informed investors that its internal “research and development organization is responsible for product architecture, core technology development, product testing, and quality assurance.” The Company also stated that it maintained a written Code of Conduct applicable to its board of directors and all employees “including our principal executive officer,” which included an express commitment: “Never [to] use illegal or questionable means to acquire a competitor’s trade secrets or other confidential information, such as . . . stealing, seeking confidential information from a new employee who recently worked for a competitor, or misrepresenting your identity in hopes of obtaining confidential information.”
On May 29, 2020, Appian Corporation (“Appian”), a principal competitor of PEGA, filed a civil complaint in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Virginia against PEGA and fan employee of a government contractor using Appian software, alleging claims for trade secret misappropriation, violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, tortious interference, and statutory business and common law conspiracy (the “Appian Litigation”). The Appian complaint alleged efforts by PEGA to obtain Appian trade secrets through the contractor’s employee, who had access to Appian’s software and materials. The complaint further alleged that PEGA’s own employees, including its Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), misrepresented themselves as potential customers of Appian partners to improperly gain access to Appian’s trial software.
Despite the obvious materiality of the Appian Litigation, including its allegation that PEGA had essentially stolen Appian’s trade secrets and caused Appian massive damages, in violation of SEC reporting regulations, for nearly two full years during the Class Period Defendants never disclosed or described the Appian Litigation in its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or annual reports on Form 10-K. When they did finally discuss the Appian Litigation, Defendants falsely assured investors that the claims asserted in the litigation were “without merit,” PEGA faced no exposure in the litigation because Appian’s alleged damages “are not supported by the necessary legal standard of proximate cause,” and, even if PEGA was found liable, it was “unable to reasonably estimate possible damages.”
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PEGA had engaged in corporate espionage and misappropriation of trade secrets to better compete against Appian; (2) Defendants’ product development and associated success was, in significant part, not the result of its own research and product testing but rather the result of such corporate espionage and trade secret theft; (3) Defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal Appian trade secrets, which was not only known to, but carried out through the personal involvement of PEGA’s CEO; (4) PEGA’s CEO and other officers and employees did not comply with PEGA’s written Code of Conduct; (5) PEGA was “unable to reasonably estimate damages” in the Appian Litigation; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about PEGA’s business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and potential damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made.
The truth regarding PEGA’s fraudulent conduct was revealed after the close of the markets on May 9, 2022, when PEGA issued a press release announcing that the jury in the Appian Litigation had awarded Appian more than $2 billion for PEGA’s misappropriation of trade secrets.
In response to this news, PEGA’s stock price fell 21%, from a closing price of $65.93 per share on May 9, 2022, to a closing price of $52.25 on May 10, 2022. As the market continued to digest the verdict, PEGA’s stock price dropped another 8% to close at $48.07 per share the following day.
For more information on the Pegasystems class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/PEGA
Humbl, Inc. (OTCMKTS: HMBL)
Class Period: November 1, 2020 – May 19, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022
Humbl is a mobile financial services company that offers investors various financial products associated with “Web 3” technology and decentralized finance.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s growth prospects, technological advancements, international partnerships, and financial benefits for Humbl common stock and digital asset investors, as well as using selectively timed announcements to keep Humbl stock price high so that Company insiders could sell off their holdings into artificially created volume. The complaint also alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act by selling its unregistered securities (BLOCK ETX digital assets) to investors.
On April 25, 2022, the price of the Humbl common stock hit a low of $0.11 per share, down from a price high of $6.84 during the Class Period, which it has not been able to recover. Likewise, the price of BLOCK ETX has dropped over 87% from its height during the Class Period and has not recovered.
For more information on the Humbl class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/HMBL
Okta, Inc. (NASDAQ: OKTA)
Class Period: March 5, 2021 – March 22, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022
Okta provides identity solutions for enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses, universities, non-profits, and government agencies in the U.S. and internationally. The Company offers a variety of cybersecurity products and services. Following its completed merger with Auth0, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Auth0”), on May 3, 2021 (the “Merger”), Okta began providing additional Auth0 products related to cybersecurity and login solutions.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate cybersecurity controls; (ii) as a result, Okta’s systems were vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a data breach caused by a hacking group, which potentially affected hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose and subsequently downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Okta’s business, financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On or around March 21, 2022, hackers known as LAPSUS$ posted screenshots on their Telegram1 channel showing what they claimed was Okta’s internal company environment. Thereafter, on March 22, 2022, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Defendant Todd McKinnon (“McKinnon”), posted a statement on his Twitter account, disclosing that, “[i]n late January 2022, Okta detected an attempt to compromise the account of a third party customer support engineer working for one of our subprocessors”; that “[t]he matter was investigated and contained by the subprocessor”; that “[w]e believe the screenshots shared online are connected to this January event”; and that, “[b]ased on our investigation to date, there is no evidence of ongoing malicious activity beyond the activity detected in January.”
On this news, Okta’s stock price fell $2.98 per share, or 1.76%, to close at $166.43 per share on March 22, 2022.
Later, on March 22, 2022, during after-market hours, in a statement on Okta’s website, the Company’s Chief Security Officer (“CSO”), Defendant David Bradbury (“Bradbury”), disclosed, inter alia, that “[a]fter a thorough analysis of [the LAPSUS$] claims, we have concluded that a small percentage of customers – approximately 2.5% – have potentially been impacted and whose data may have been viewed or acted upon.”
Following Okta’s updated statement, multiple news outlets reported that hundreds of the Company’s clients were potentially affected by the January 2022 data breach. For example, on March 23, 2022, CNN published an article entitled “Okta concedes hundreds of clients could be affected by breach[,]” noting that, despite the Company’s statement that “a small percentage of customers – approximately 2.5% – have potentially been impacted[,]” the Company “has over 15,000 customers, according to its website.” That same day, Reuters and others published similar reports.
Separately, Okta was downgraded by Raymond James from “strong buy” to “market perform,” noting, among other things, that “[w]hile partners were willing to trust Okta’s track record, the handling of its latest security incident adds to our mounting concerns.”
Following Okta’s after-market update and Raymond James downgrade, the Company’s stock price fell $17.88 per share, or 10.74%, to close at $148.55 per share on March 23, 2022.
As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.
For more information on the Okta class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/OKTA
Enservco Corp. (NYSE American: ENSV)
Class Period: May 13, 2021 – April 18, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022
Enservco, through its subsidiaries, provides well enhancement and fluid management services to the onshore oil and natural gas industry in the United States.
Recently, the Company has employed several tactics in an apparent effort to strengthen its balance sheets. For example, in August 2020, Enservco’s Board of Directors approved a transaction to, inter alia, exchange 50% of the Company’s subordinated debt with Cross River Partners, L.P. (“Cross River Partners”), a related party. Enservco’s Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Richard A. Murphy, is managing member of Cross River Capital Management, LLC, the general partner of Cross River Partners. On February 3, 2021, Enservco exchanged the remaining 50% of its subordinated debt with Cross River Partners. In addition, the Company awarded a warrant to Cross River Partners to purchase up to 150,418 additional shares of the Company’s common stock in the future at an exercise price of $2.507 per share.
Moreover, during the second quarter of 2021, Enservco amended payroll tax returns originally filed for the third and fourth quarters of 2020 to claim refundable Employee Retention Credits (“ERCs”)—a type of tax credit provided for under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”)—for those periods.
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) Enservco had defective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, there were errors in Enservco’s financial statements relating to, inter alia, its transactions with Cross River Partners and accounting for ERCs; (iii) accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its financial statements and delay the filing of its 2021 annual report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (iv) the Company downplayed the true scope and severity of its financial reporting issues; (v) accordingly, the Company could not file its delayed 2021 annual report with the SEC within its initially represented timeline; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 28, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that it had “concluded that the Company’s previously issued condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarters ended March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021” (collectively, the “Relevant Periods”) “should no longer be relied upon largely because of the Company’s accounting for a conversion of debt to equity with a related party,” namely, Cross River Partners. The Company further advised that it had “misinterpret[ed the] eligibility for certain employee retention tax credits under relevant provisions of the [CARES Act]” and would “amend its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods to reflect restatements of its condensed consolidated financial statements for the Relevant Periods.”
On this news, Enservco’s stock price fell $0.45 per share, or 12.3%, to close at $3.21 per share on March 28, 2022.
On March 31, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that it could not timely file the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2021 because the Company was “in the process of restating [its] financial statements and preparing amendments to its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filings for the Relevant Periods, which must be completed prior to the completion and filing of the [Company]’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2021.”
On this news, Enservco’s stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 7.78%, to close at $2.49 per share on April 1, 2022.
On April 4, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that its Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Marjorie A. Hargrave, “is departing the Company and will no longer be an executive officer and employee of the Company effective April 22, 2022.”
On this news, Enservco’s stock price fell $0.19 per share, or 7.48%, to close at $2.35 per share on April 5, 2022.
On April 11, 2022, Enservco filed amended quarterly reports with the SEC for the Relevant Periods, each of which reported adjusted net losses that increased, and adjusted other income that decreased, significantly for their respective periods.
Then, on April 18, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that the Company “will not be filing its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 within the 15-day extension period provided by the Company’s 12b-25 filing” because it “intends to [again] amend its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods to reflect restatements of its condensed consolidated financial statements for the Relevant Periods.”
On this news, Enservco’s stock price fell $0.38 per share, or 10.47%, to close at $3.25 per share on April 19, 2022.
For more information on the Enservco class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ENSV
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.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com
