An investor, who purchased shares of Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR), filed a lawsuit over alleged violations of Securities Laws by Restaurant Brands International Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made in connection with the Company’s secondary public offerings conducted in August and September 2019.
Canada based Restaurant Brands International Inc. owns, operates, and franchises quick service restaurants under the Tim Hortons (TH), Burger King (BK), and Popeyes (PLK) brand names.
Restaurant Brands International Inc. conducted secondary public offerings conducted in August and September 2019.
Shares of Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR) declined from $79.46 per share in August 2019, respectively $71.90 per share in September 2019, to as low as $25.08 per share on March 18, 2020.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that the Registration Statements that where filed in connection with the Company’s secondary public offerings conducted in August and September 2019 featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Contrary to the Shelf Registration Statement’s claim that the Company had “three thriving, independent brands with significant global growth potential,” the Tim Hortons brand was not positioned for growth, that he Tims Rewards and its significant discounting was not increasing profitability as evidenced by weekly sales data because, as would later be admitted, the program could not be supported by existing customer traffic and instead negatively affected sales, that product offerings were not driving growth or expanding the Company’s customer base and as a result, as the Company would later admit, the Company’s product offerings resulted in a gap in sales of its sandwiches and wraps, that despite its purported “steps to address this part of the menu,” the Company was reporting weak year-over-year sales comparisons based on its product offerings and was unable to compete effectively, that the discounting associated with Tims Rewards was not sustainable, as customer traffic was not offsetting the program’s discounts, that the Company was not realizing the purported benefit of the loyalty program as evidenced by weekly sales reports, that the Company’s product offerings were similarly not increasing customer traffic, especially as compared to its competitors, and that as a result of the negative effect on Tim Horton’s sales, the Company was not “maintain[ing] its competitive position.” When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.