Alfi, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit - ALF; ALFIW
- Company Name
- Alfi, Inc.
- Stock Symbol
- ALF; ALFIW
- Class Period
- May 4, 2021 to November 15, 2021
- Motion Deadline
- January 31, 2022
- Southern District of Florida
The Alfi class action lawsuit charges Alfi, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALF; ALFIW) as well as certain of its executives and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Alfi class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of: (a) Alfi common stock or warrants pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in connection with Alfi’s initial public offering conducted on or about May 4, 2021 (the “IPO”); and/or (b) Alfi securities between May 4, 2021 and November 15, 2021, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The Alfi class action lawsuit was commenced on December 2, 2021 in the Southern District of Florida and is captioned Steppacher v. Alfi, Inc., No. 21-cv-24232.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Alfi class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at email@example.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Alfi class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than January 31, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Alfi provides interactive artificial intelligence and machine learning software solutions. Pursuant to the IPO’s offering documents, Alfi sold approximately 3.7 million shares of common stock and approximately 3.7 million warrants to the public at the IPO price of $4.15 per both share and warrant for approximate proceeds to Alfi of $14 million after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions, and before expenses.
The Alfi class action lawsuit alleges that the offering documents and defendants throughout the Class Period made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Alfi maintained deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, Alfi and its employees could and did engage in corporate transactions and other matters without sufficient and appropriate consultation with or approval by Alfi’s Board of Directors; (iii) the foregoing increased the risk of internal and regulatory investigations into Alfi and its employees; (iv) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Alfi’s reputation, financial condition, and ability to timely file periodic reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”); and (v) as a result, Alfi’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On October 28, 2021, Alfi disclosed that, on October 22, 2021, its Board had placed defendant Paul Antonio Pereira (Alfi’s CEO), Charles Raglan Pereira (Alfi’s CTO), and defendant Dennis McIntosh (Alfi’s CFO) “on paid administrative leave and authorized an independent internal investigation regarding certain corporate transactions and other matters.” Alfi further disclosed, among other changes, that on October 22, 2021, its Board had appointed a new interim CEO and Chairman of the Board, and that “[o]n October 28, 2021, Mr. C. Pereira’s employment with the Company was terminated.” On this news, Alfi’s stock price fell nearly 22%.
On November 1, 2021, Alfi disclosed, among other matters, that Alfi’s Chair of the Audit Committee had resigned from the Board, and detailed “the Company’s purchase of a condominium for a purchase price of approximately $1.1 million” and “the Company’s commitment to sponsor a sports tournament in the amount of $640,000,” both of which “were undertaken by the Company’s management without sufficient and appropriate consultation with or approval by the Board.”
Then, on November 15, 2021, Alfi disclosed that it “received a letter from the staff of the [SEC] indicating that the Company, its affiliates and agents may possess documents and data relevant to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the staff of the SEC” and “that such documents and data should be reasonably preserved and retained until further notice.”
Finally, on November 16, 2021, Alfi filed a notice of its inability to timely file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2021. That filing cited, among other things, “recent changes in the Company’s [CEO] and [CFO] and in the Chair of the Audit Committee” of the Board, as well as needing “a new independent registered public accounting firm,” as reasons for the Company’s inability to timely file the quarterly report. Following these disclosures, Alfi’s stock price fell by more than 5%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased: (a) Alfi common stock or warrants pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in connection with Alfi’s IPO; and/or (b) Alfi securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Alfi class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Alfi class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Alfi class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Alfi class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors that year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs’ firm.