May 07, 2021 - An investor in shares of Skillz Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Skillz Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between December 16, 2020 to April 19, 2021.
San Francisco, CA based Skillz Inc. operates a mobile games platform that connects players worldwide. Its platform hosts casual esports tournaments. Skillz Inc. reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $199.87 million in 2019 to $230.11 million in 2020, and Net Loss increased from $23.6 million in 2019 to $122.46 million in 2020.
On March 8, 2021, when analyst Wolfpack Research published a scathing report, accusing Skillz Inc. of concealing that revenues from three games responsible for 88% of Skillz’s total revenues (Blitz, Solitaire Cube, Blackout Bingo) substantially declined and effectively gutted the company’s growth projections.
Then, on April 18, 2021, Eagle Eye Research published a report claiming Skillz Inc’s revenue recognition practices were "like round-tripping where the company is effectively giving its customers money to spend on SKLZ and recognizing revenue from it, i.e. generating no net economic profits." Eagle Eye concluded "that true cash revenue is less than ½ of what management portrays to investors."
Shares of Skillz Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ) declined from $36.50 per share on March 2, 2021 to as low as $12.72 per share on May 13, 2021.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Skillz Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ) common shares between December 16, 2020 to April 19, 2021, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between December 16, 2020 to April 19, 2021, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that three games responsible for a majority of Skillz’s revenues had declined substantially, that Skillz’s revenue recognition policy misrepresented the financial condition of the company, that unrealistic market growth, specifically in the Android market, and that as a result defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.