NEW YORK, Aug. 06, 2023 (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 Syneos Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: SYNH), AT&T, Inc. (NYSE: T), RTX Corporation (NYSE: RTX), and Eos Energy Enterprises (NASDAQ: EOSE). 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.
Syneos Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: SYNH)
Class Period: September 9, 2020 – November 3, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 25, 2023
On February 17, 2022, Syneos revealed that its reimbursable expenses would likely never recover to pre-pandemic levels. As a result, Syneos segregated reimbursable expenses from many of its operational metrics, revealing that $3.8 billion of Syneos’ Clinical Solutions backlog (36%) was at risk of never being collected and providing an alarmingly low book-to-bill ratio of just 0.34x in the segment when reimbursable expenses were included. Although Syneos did not disclose the magnitude of the backlog “adjustment,” some analysts estimated that Syneos had eliminated as much as $950 million in prior pass-through revenues.
On this news, the price of Syneos common stock fell nearly 5%.
Then, on August 2, 2022, Syneos revealed substantial deterioration in its business, disclosing that net new business awards within Syneos’ Clinical Solutions segment had declined by roughly 34% including reimbursable expenses and 15% excluding reimbursable expenses, reflecting book-to-bill ratios of 0.94x and 1.29x, respectively. In addition, Syneos disclosed that it would not achieve even its lowered expectations for reimbursable revenues for the year, causing Syneos to slash expected 2022 revenues by $185 million at the midpoint.
On this news, the price of Syneos common stock fell more than 17%.
Thereafter, on September 13, 2022, Syneos disclosed that it expected to announce a book-to bill ratio in its Clinical Solutions segment for the trailing 12 months ending September 30, 2022 in the range of 1.05x to 1.15x, excluding reimbursable expenses.
On this news, the price of Syneos common stock declined nearly 17%.
Subsequently, on November 4, 2022, Syneos revealed that its book-to-bill ratios had plummeted below even the reduced figures provided in September 2022. Specifically, Syneos stated that its Clinical Solutions segment had achieved net new business awards of $182 million including reimbursable expenses – a startling year-over-year decline of 87% – and a book-to-bill ratio of just 0.18x for the quarter, which was just one-tenth of the new business growth expected by some analysts.
On this news, the price of Syneos common stock fell more than 46%, further damaging investors.
As the Syneos class action lawsuit alleges, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Syneos’ business development capabilities had been materially impaired by workforce reductions and leadership and operational changes, as well as labor force turmoil caused by the COVID-19 pandemic; (ii) Syneos had struggled to integrate recent acquisitions, causing Syneos to suffer from a bloated and confused organizational structure and impairing Syneos’ ability to provide comprehensive or effective customer engagement across its product portfolio; (iii) Syneos was suffering from acute competitive disadvantages as clinical trials moved to remote monitoring and decentralized administration, as Syneos lacked the tools possessed by some of its rivals to successfully run remote and decentralized trials, such as certain data visualization and statistical modeling capabilities, and Syneos had failed to adapt to changing business demands in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic; (iv) Syneos’ backlog, book-to-bill ratios, and net new business awards had been artificially inflated by more than $500 million through the inclusion of reimbursable expenses that Syneos would never collect; (v) as a result of the above, Syneos was struggling to execute on its existing contracts and to agilely respond to its client needs, causing Syneos to suffer client dissatisfaction across its client base; and (vi) consequently, Syneos was exposed to a material undisclosed risk that Syneos would lose customers, be unable to grow its client base or win significant contract renewals, and cede market share to its rivals.
For more information on the Syneos class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/SYNH
AT&T, Inc. (NYSE: T)
Class Period: March 1, 2020 – July 26, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 26, 2023
On July 9, 2023, the Wall Street Journal published an article reporting that more than 2,000 abandoned lead cables, previously used by AT&T and other telecommunication companies, were degrading and leaching into soil and groundwater, posing a significant public health risk. In a related article, the Wall Street Journal estimated that cleanup costs could run into the tens of billions of dollars.
Following publication of these articles, analysts downgraded AT&T and other telecommunication company stocks. AT&T’s stock price fell $0.97 per share, or 6.69%, to close at $13.53 per share on July 17, 2023.
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) AT&T owns cables around the country that are highly toxic due to their being wrapped in lead, and which harm Company employees and non-employees alike; (2) it faces potentially significant litigation risk, regulatory risk, and reputational harm as a result of its ownership of these lead-covered cables and the health risks stemming from their presence around the United States; (3) it was warned about the damage and risks presented by these cables but did not disclose them as a potential threat to employee safety or to everyday people and communities; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the AT&T class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/T
RTX Corporation (NYSE: RTX)
Class Period: February 8, 2021 – July 25, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 2, 2023
On July 25, 2023, Reuters released an article entitled “RTX shares tumble on Pratt & Whitney airliner engine problem,” which reported that “more than 1,000 [GTF] engines must [be] removed from Airbus planes and checked for microscopic cracks.” Reuters further reported that “RTX said it was reducing its 2023 cash-flow forecast by $500 million to $4.3 billion due to the inspections.”
On this news, the price of RTX shares declined by more than 10%, damaging investors.
The RTX class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the GTF engines had been affected from at least 2015-2020 by a quality control issue; and (ii) this quality control issue would require RTX to recall and reinspect many of its GTF airplanes, affecting customers and harming its business.
For more information on the RTX class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RTX
Eos Energy Enterprises (NASDAQ: EOSE)
Class Period: May 9, 2022 – June 27, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 2, 2023
On July 27, 2023, during market hours, Iceberg Research (“Iceberg”) published a report titled “62% Of $Eose’s Backlog Is With Financially Distressed Bridgelink Whose Renewable Energy Assets Were Foreclosed And Auctioned Off In May.” Therein, Iceberg alleged that, while the fate of Eos “rests on its touted 2.2 GWh energy storage system backlog, which EOS valued at $535 million at the end of March 2023,” the backlog “is fake.” Iceberg elaborated that “Bridgelink Commodities, accounts for half of EOS’s backlog by MWh or ~62% ($331 million) of its total dollar value” but that Iceberg “decided to dig into this customer’s background and uncovered a group whose assets were recently seized by a creditor and sold in an auction.” Iceberg added that “[w]e wonder how EOS can still present Bridgelink as a major client” and that “EOS continues to include Bridgelink in its backlog, and is likely to have made the same representations when applying for the Department of Energy loan.” Iceberg concluded that its findings “completely undermine the authenticity of EOS Energy’s promoted backlog.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.83 per share, or 23.9%, to close at $2.65 per share on July 27, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On July 27, 2023, after the market closed, Eos issued a press release titled “Eos Energy Enterprises Provides Preliminary Results & Issues Statement Regarding Its Customer Commitments and Backlog.” Therein, the Company attempted to address the issues that Iceberg identified. Eos stated that “[t]he Company believes that its customer, Bridgelink Commodities, LLC, is a separate legal entity which is not implicated in the legal matters highlighted in today’s statements” and that “[t]his customer, representing 45% of the Company’s backlog, reconfirmed today that it continues to build pipeline and is actively seeking financing for energy storage projects covered by Eos’s multi-year Master Supply Agreement.” Eos also stated that “[t]he Company continues to progress through the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Programs Office’s (LPO) process for its Title XVII loan and is awaiting a conditional approval decision which may be taking longer due to changes from the recent Interim Final Rule announced in May.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.39 per share, or 14.7%, to close at $2.26 per share on July 28, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Bridgelink Commodities, LLC (“Bridgelink”) is connected to a group whose assets were seized by a creditor and sold in an auction; (2) that, as such, Bridgelink’s commitment and ability to purchase Eos products was not as secure as Eos had led investors to believe; (3) that, as such, Eos’s backlog was overstated; (4) that such overstatement negatively impacts Eos’s ability to secure a loan from the Department of Energy; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Eos class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/EOSE
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
