Back

Restaurant Brands International Inc.

Case Details

Class Period: April 29, 2019 - October 28, 2019
Date Filed: December 21, 2020
Case Number: 1:20cv10788
Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
Days Left to
Seek Plaintiff:
35

Case Summary

The Class Period commences on April 29, 2019, when Restaurant Brands filed its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2019 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Among other things, Restaurant Brands reported 0.5% system-wide year-over-year sales growth for Tim Hortons on system-wide sales of $1.547 billion. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants repeatedly touted the implementation and execution of Restaurant Brands’ Winning Together Plan and Tims Rewards loyalty program. On the heels of Restaurant Brands touting the benefits of these initiatives, the company completed two stock offerings on or about August 12, 2019, and September 5, 2019, collectively resulting in proceeds of approximately $3 billion to insiders. However, on October 29, 2019, the truth about Restaurant Brands’ execution of its Winning Together Plan and Tims Rewards loyalty program was revealed when the company announced disappointing financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2019. Among other things, Restaurant Brands reported a 0.1% system-wide year-over-year sales decline for Tim Hortonsrepresenting a 1.4% same-store sales declineon system-wide sales of $1.774 billion. Following this news, the price of Restaurant Brands common stock declined $2.59 per share, or approximately 4%, from a close of $68.45 per share on October 25, 2019, to close at $64.86 per share on October 28, 2019. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Restaurant Brands’ Winning Together Plan was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; (2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, the defendants’ statements about Restaurant Brands’ business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

Documents
Complaint