The Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Class Actions on Behalf of Shareholders of VALE, BRS, CNDT and CRBP

NEW YORK, March 27, 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.

Vale S.A. (VALE)
Class Period: April 11, 2017 to January 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2019

During the class period, Vale S.A. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Vale had failed to adequately assess the risk and damage potential of a dam breach at its Feijão iron ore mine especially in light of its experience in 2015; (ii) Vale’s programs to mitigate health and safety incidents were inadequate; (iii) Defendants failed to disclose that Vale’s auditor was not independent, as required under Brazilian mining law; (iv) Defendants failed to disclose that an internal report commissioned by Vale in 2018 to assess the stability of the tailings dam raised concerns over its drainage and monitoring systems; (v) Defendants failed to disclose the existence of information that the dam was at risk of "liquefaction,” the same issue that led to the 2015 collapse of the Samarco dam; and (vi) as a result, Vale’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Get additional information about the VALE lawsuit: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/vale-s-a-loss-submission-form?wire=3

Bristow Group Inc. (BRS)
Class Period: February 8, 2018 to February 12, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 15, 2019

According to the complaint, Bristow Group Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Bristow lacked adequate monitoring processes related to non-financial covenants within its secured financing and lease agreements; (2) Bristow could not reasonably assure compliance with certain non-financial covenants; (3) Bristow was reasonably likely to breach certain agreements; (4) Bristow had understated its short-term debt; (5) the required corrections would materially impact financial statements; (6) there was a material weakness in Bristow’s internal controls over financial reporting; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about Bristow’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Conduent Incorporated (CNDT)
Class Period: February 21, 2018 to November 6, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2019

The complaint alleges that by February 2018, defendants began to represent to investors that Conduent had exited the transformation phase and had cured inefficiencies caused by operating on multiple information resource platforms. However, as demonstrated by defendants’ admissions on November 7, 2018, those representations were false, and Conduent remained mired in inadequate technology and third-party agreements that it had been saddled with upon its divestiture from Xerox.  During a November 7, 2018 conference call, CEO Ashok Vemuri stated “we have had continued suboptimal performance from an inherited legacy technology vendor. The performance issues stem from the vendors inability to deliver on service level agreements, lack of responsiveness to Conduent’s needs, and poorly structured contracts which we inherited.” Vemuri also noted that an “outdated and historically under-invested legacy IT infrastructure has caused major disruptions to our operations and impacted client and delivery performance.” 

Get additional information about the CNDT lawsuit: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/conduent-incorporated-loss-submission-form?wire=3

Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. (CRBP)
Class Period: November 14, 2016 to February 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 13, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Corbus improperly changed the primary efficacy endpoint for the clinical study of its drug candidate, Lenabasum, after the results were unblinded to Corbus; (2) Corbus reported a one-sided p value, not the traditional two-sided p value normally reported in clinical trials, in an effort to conceal the fact that the study results did not have statistical significance; and (3) as a result, Corbus’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.