Paysafe Limited f/k/a Foley Trasimene Acquisition Corp. II
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Paysafe Limited f/k/a Foley Trasimene Acquisition Corp. II (“Paysafe” or the “Company”) (NYSE: PSFE, BFT) securities from December 7, 2020 through November 10, 2021, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Investors have until February 8, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Paysafe provides digital commerce solutions. Paysafe’s solutions extend well beyond the card-based payments functionality of traditional payment vendors by providing the advanced capabilities of digital wallets, alternative payment methods (“APMs”) and digital currency transactions.
On March 30, 2021, Paysafe became a public entity via business combination with FTAC.
On November 11, 2021, before the market opened, Paysafe announced that it was revising its revenue guidance for the full year 2021 downward from a range of $1,530 – $1,550 million to a range of $1,470 – $1,480 million. Paysafe attributed the revision to “[g]ambling regulations and softness in key European markets and performance challenges impacting the Digital Wallet segment” and “[t]he modified scope and timing of new eCommerce customer agreements relative to the Company’s original expectations for these agreements.” On this news, the price of the Company’s shares declined by $3.03 per share, or approximately 41.7%, from $7.27 per share to close at $4.24 per share on November 11, 2021.
The lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Paysafe was being negatively impacted by gambling regulations in key European markets; (2) Paysafe was encountering performance challenges in its Digital Wallet segment; (3) new eCommerce customer agreements were being pushed back; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.