NEW YORK, Sept. 23, 2020 (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 Ultra Petroleum Corp. (Other OTC: UPLCQ, NASDAQ: UPL), HDFC Bank Limited (NYSE: HDB), Fennec Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: FENC), and Portland General Electric Company (“PGE”) (NYSE: POR). 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.

Ultra Petroleum Corp. (Other OTC: UPLCQ, NASDAQ: UPL)

Class Period: April 3, 2017 to August 8, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

Ultra Petroleum is an oil and gas development company with primary assets in the Pinedale and Jonah fields of the Green River Basin of southwest Wyoming. Over 80% of the Company’s revenues have historically been derived from the development and sale of natural gas.

On May 14, 2020, Ultra Petroleum filed for bankruptcy protection and is not named as a defendant in the action.

In April 2017, at the beginning of the Class Period, Ultra Petroleum exited a court-supervised reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. According to defendants, Ultra Petroleum exited the bankruptcy in “growth mode.” Defendants stated that the Company was poised to maximize the value of its substantial oil and gas deposits (which they valued at $4.19 billion, including $1.5 billion of proved undeveloped reserves) through ramped up production in 2017 and 2018 and that Ultra Petroleum was on track to produce between 290 and 300 billion cubic feet equivalent (“Bcfe”) in 2017, with 25% production growth over these figures in 2018. Defendants represented that the Company had the financial and production flexibility to weather even a low-commodity-price environment and was set to ramp up well development with 10 rigs operating by 2018 on the back of an estimated $788 million capital budget. Accretive to this plan was the launch of a horizontal well drilling program, which Ultra Petroleum executives claimed was set to significantly expand the production capabilities of the Company’s existing wells.

Then, beginning in August 2017, soon after exiting bankruptcy, Ultra Petroleum began issuing a series of revelations demonstrating that it could not grow production by any meaningful amount and that its wells were worth a fraction of the values previously represented. Finally, on August 9, 2019, Ultra Petroleum announced disappointing results for the second quarter of 2019, disclosing that total revenues for the quarter had decreased 18%, that the Company’s horizontal well program had been effectively halted, and that it was lowering its 2019 projected capital investments to a range of $260 million to $290 million and annual production to a range of 238 to 244 Bcfe.

On this news, the price of Ultra Petroleum stock declined 31% to just $0.09 per share and continued to fall to just $0.01 per share, 99% below the stock’s Class Period high. On August 22, 2019, Ultra Petroleum stock was delisted. And in May 2020, the Company was forced to enter bankruptcy proceedings yet again in order to seek a court-ordered reorganization.

The complaint, filed on September 1, 2020, alleges that these and similar statements issued by defendants during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made. Throughout the Class Period, defendants, inter alia: (i) materially overstated the value of Ultra Petroleum’s oil and gas reserves; (ii) materially misrepresented the Company’s ability to ramp up production and its financial flexibility; (iii) failed to disclose the Company’s extreme sensitivity to even a modest decline in natural gas prices; and (iv) concealed significant setbacks in the Company’s vaunted horizontal well drilling program.

For more information on the Ultra Petroleum class action go to: https://bespc.com/ultrapetroleum

HDFC Bank Limited (NYSE: HDB)

Class Period: July 31, 2019 to July 10, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

HDFC Bank was founded in 1994 and is based in Mumbai, India. The Bank provides various banking and financial services to individuals and businesses in India, Bahrain, Hong Kong, and Dubai.

HDFC Bank operates in Treasury, Retail Banking, Wholesale Banking, Other Banking Business, and Unallocated segments, offering, among other services, various types of loans to millions of its retail borrowers, including personal and vehicle financing loans.

Revenues generated from HDFC Bank’s auto and commercial vehicle loans are reported as part of the Bank’s Retail Banking segment.

On July 13, 2020, The Economic Times published an article titled “HDFC Bank probes lending practices at vehicle unit.” That article reported that HDFC Bank had “conducted a probe into allegations of improper lending practices and conflicts of interests in its vehicle-financing operations involving the unit’s former head.”

On this news, HDFC Bank’s American Depositary Share (“ADS”) price fell $1.37 per share, or 2.83%, to close at $47.02 per share on July 13, 2020

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Bank’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HDFC Bank had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Bank maintained improper lending practices in its vehicle-financing operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from the Bank’s vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Bank’s financial condition and reputation; and (v) as a result, the Bank’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the HDFC Bank class action go to: https://bespc.com/HDB

Fennec Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: FENC)

Class Period: February 11, 2020 to August 10, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

Fennec is a biopharmaceutical company that purportedly focuses on the development of PEDMARK, a sodium thiosulfate anhydrous injection, for the prevention of platinum-induced ototoxicity in pediatric cancer patients.

On August 11, 2020, Fennec disclosed that it had received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding the Company’s New Drug Application for PEDMARK. According to the CRL, “after recent completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility of [Fennec’s] drug product manufacturer, the FDA identified deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of conditions or practices that are required to be resolved prior to the approval of PEDMARK.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.51, or 34%, to close at $6.66 per share on August 11, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, 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 the manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK, the Company’s sole product candidate, did not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) 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 Fennec class action go to: https://bespc.com/FENC

Portland General Electric Company (“PGE”) (NYSE: POR)

Class Period: April 24, 2020 to August 24, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

PGE is an electric utility that engages in the generation, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the state of Oregon. The Company also participates in wholesale markets by purchasing and selling electricity and natural gas to meet the needs of its retail customers.

On August 24, 2020, PGE announced that it had incurred losses of $127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE further stated that “PGE personnel entered into a number of energy trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third quarter, resulting in significant exposure to the Company.” In addition, PGE announced that it had formed a Special Committee “to review the energy trading that led to the losses and the Company’s procedures and controls related to the trading.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.51, or nearly 8%, to close at $38.45 per share on August 24, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, 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 PGE lacked effective internal controls over its energy trading practices; (2) that PGE personnel had entered energy trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4) 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 Portland General Electric class action, go to: https://bespc.com/POR

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. 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.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.