December 21, 2020 - An investor in shares of Triterras, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRIT) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Triterras, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between August 20, 2020 and December 16, 2020.
Singapore based Triterras, Inc. f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp, though its subsidiaries, operates as a fintech company.
On December 17, 2020, Triterras, Inc announced that Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. was seeking a moratorium to shield itself from creditor actions while it planned a restructuring of its debts and continue its business as a going concern. Triterras, Inc further stated that Rhodium was instrumental to the initial launch of the Company's Kratos platform and the platform's attractiveness to the commodities trading and trade financings communities and that substantially all of the users of the Kratos platform during the year ended February 29, 2020 were referred to the platform by Rhodium and its subsidiaries who accounted for 26.5% of the Company's revenues.
Shares of Triterras, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRIT) declined from $15.17 per share on December 16, 2020, to as low as $7.70 per share on December 17, 2020.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Triterras, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRIT) common shares between August 20, 2020 and December 16, 2020, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between August 20, 2020 and December 16, 2020, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the extent to which the Company’s revenue growth relied on Triterras’ relationship with Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. (“Rhodium”) to refer users to the Kratos platform, that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern, that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company’s Kratos platform, and that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about Triterras’ business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.