According to the Complaint, Berry purports to be an independent upstream energy company and engages in the development and production of conventional oil reserves located in the western United States. The Company’s properties are located in the San Joaquin and Ventura basins, California; Uinta basin, Utah; and Piceance basin, Colorado. As of December 31, 2019, Berry had a total of 3,541 net producing wells.
On June 29, 2018, the Company filed its Registration Statement on Form S-l for the IPO, which, after an amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on July 25, 2018 (the “Registration Statement”). On or around July 26, 2018, Berry conducted the IPO, upon which the Company began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select market (“NASDAQ”), issuing 13 million shares of Berry common stock at $14 per share, generating over $138 million in proceeds before expenses. On July 27, 2018 Berry filed its Prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC (the “Prospectus” and, collectively with the Registration Statement, the “Offering Documents”).
The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Berry had materially overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry’s operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the Company’s productivity and increase costs; (iii) the foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the Company’s revenues; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company’s public statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein.