Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds Investors of Looming Deadline in the Class Action Lawsuit Against GTT Communications, Inc.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (“GPM”) reminds investors of the upcoming September 30, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of GTT Communications, Inc. (“GTT” or the “Company”) (NYSE: GTT) investors who acquired common stock between February 26, 2018 and July 1, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
On May 8, 2019, the Company reported a larger-than-expected loss and sequential decline in revenue for first quarter 2019. GTT attributed the negative performance to integration issues with Interoute Communications Holdings S.A. (“Interoute”), which the Company had acquired to improve growth of its cloud networking services.
On this news, shares of GTT fell $10.38 per share over two days, or over 25%, to close at $29.91 per share on May 9, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on August 27, 2019, the Company announced that its Chief Financial Officer was leaving the Company, effective September 30, 2019.
On this news, shares of GTT fell $0.63, or 7%, to close at $8.36 per share on August 27, 2019, thereby injuring investors further.
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 there were delays in migrating Interoute’s legacy systems and processes into GTT’s client management database system; (2) that Interoute had made a strategic priority shift to sell cloud services that was a higher percentage of Interoute’s sales in the two years leading up to the acquisition; (3) that a material percentage of the Interoute sales representatives were not productive at selling GTT’s core cloud networking services; (4) that GTT was unable to yield as many Interoute salespeople because Interoute had hired many sales people focused on cloud services and allowed underperforming sales representatives to remain at Interoute; and (5) that as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.