The Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Class Actions on Behalf of Shareholders of EQBK, CLDR, PYX and ZUO

NEW YORK, June 20, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Equity Bancshares, Inc. (EQBK)
Class Period: May 11, 2018 to April 22, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2019

Throughout the class period, Equity Bancshares, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk; (2) as a result, certain of the Company’s loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain substandard loans; and (4) 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.

Get additional information about the EQBK lawsuit: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/equity-bancshares-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3 

Cloudera, Inc. (CLDR)
Class Period: April 28, 2017 to June 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 6, 2019

According to the complaint, Cloudera, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cloudera was finding it increasingly difficult to identify large enterprises interested in adopting the Company’s Hadoop-based  platform; (ii) Cloudera needed to expend an increasing amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to generate new revenues, even as new revenue opportunities were diminishing; and (iii) Cloudera had materially diminished sales opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual positive cash flows.

Get additional information about the CLDR lawsuit: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/cloudera-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3 

Pyxus International, Inc.  (PYX)
Class Period: on behalf of stockholders who purchased Pyxus (f/k/a Alliance One International, Inc. (AOI)) securities between June 7, 2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 6, 2019

The lawsuit alleges that Pyxus International, Inc.  made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing longer shipping cycles; (2) as a result, the Company’s financial results would be materially affected; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal control over financial reporting; (4) the Company’s accounting policies were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (5)  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.

Get additional information about the PYX lawsuit: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/pyxus-international-inc-f-k-a-alliance-one-international-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3 

Zuora, Inc. (ZUO)
Class Period: April 12, 2018 to May 30, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 13, 2019

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the class period, Zuora, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company  would  focus  on  implementing  RevPro  for  new  customers  ahead  of  the  deadline  to  comply  with  accounting  standard  ASC  606;  (2)  as  a  result,  the  Company  lacked  adequate  resources  to  integrate  RevPro  with  the  core  business;  (3) the  Company  would  focus  on  RevPro integration a year after the acquisition closed; (4) delays in integrating RevPro would materially impact the business; (5)  the market for RevPro was limited to customers seeking to implement  new  accounting  standards  such  as  ASC  606;  (6)  after  the  deadline  for  ASC  606  compliance passed, demand for RevPro was reasonably likely to decline; and (7) 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.