Gabor v. Transocean Ltd., et al and Matteson v. Transocean Ltd., et al are securities class action cases pending before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.  

In both cases, Plaintiffs bring securities fraud allegations against Transocean and some of its executives.  The Plaintiffs allege defendants made false and misleading statements about Transocean's financial position on its financial statements and inaccurately estimated the value of its assets.  When Transocean agreed to sell two of its rigs in September 2024, the Company had to take a $684 million impairment due to the Company's grossly inaccurate estimates of its assets.  As a result, Plaintiffs brought this case.

On April 23, 2025, Hon. Analisa Torres issued an Order consolidating these cases, appointing lead plaintiff, and appointing lead counsel.  Judge Torres appointed John Mahoney as lead plaintiff in the case.   Judge Torres also appointed Levi & Korsinsky as lead counsel.  In making the appointment, the Court cited Levi & Korsinsky's "extensive experience with securities class actions." 

The consolidate case is In re Transocean Ltd. Securities Litigation, case no. 1:24-cv-00964-AT. 

A copy of the Order can be found here. 

On April 8, 2025, Levi & Korsinsky associate Michael Pollack joined the NYU Plaintiffs’ Law Association Career Panel at Vanderbilt Hall, where he outlined the Firm’s class action practice and the strategic considerations that drive plaintiff‑side litigation. Speaking alongside other practitioners, Michael discussed client interactions, long-term career strategies, motion practice, and the skills students need to succeed in complex consumer actions. 

Sarria v. Telus International (CDA) Inc., case no. 1:25-cv-00889-DM, is a case currently pending before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.  The action was filed on behalf of investors in Telus International (CDA), Inc. (NYSE: TIXT) who allegedly suffered losses due to fraud committed by the Company and its executives.  

On April 11, 2025, Hon. Victor Marrero appointed Mohammed Mohiuddin lead plaintiff in the case.   Judge Marrero also appointed nationally recognized securities law firm Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel for the matter. 

A copy of the order can be found here. 

Levi & Korsinsky hereby provides this Summary Notice as order by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Summary Notice 

On March 25, 2025, the Hon. R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California appointed Wayne Kilthau lead plaintiff in a securities class-action against Kaspi.Kz.  Judge Klausner appointed Levi & Korsinsky lead counsel in the case, finding "Levi & Korsinsky has extensive experience prosecuting complex securities class actions." 

Plaintiffs allege Kaspi.Kz made false and misleading statements about its business, including its compliance with international economic trade sanctions against Russia.  These statements allegedly artificially inflated Kaspi.Kz's stock price.  In September 2024, a Culper Research report revealed these statements were false and misleading, causing Kaspi.Kz's stock price to decline dramatically. 

The case is captioned Dmitry Krivenok v. Kaspi.kz, et al, 2:24-cv-10926.  A copy of the order can be found here. 

News provided by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Law firms Grant & Eisenhofer and Levi & Korsinsky issued the following statement regarding that disposition of investor class action AST SpaceMobile, Inc., Stockholders Litigation:

Notice is hereby provided to all persons holding shares of AST SpaceMobile, Inc. (Nasdaq: ASTS) who previously held shares of New Providence Acquisition Corp. (Nasdaq: NPA)

The purpose of this notice is to inform you about developments with respect to litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Delaware Court”) captioned In re AST SpaceMobile, Inc., Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 2023-1292-PAF (the “Action”), including proposed dismissal of the Action and the time within which stockholders who have standing may move to intervene and seek to take over prosecution of the Action.  This notice is being issued by Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, who are Co-Lead Counsel to Plaintiffs in the Action.

On December 16, 2020, New Providence Acquisition Corp. (“NPA”), a special purpose acquisition company, announced that it had agreed to merge with AST & Science, LLC, with the surviving company to become AST SpaceMobile, Inc. (“ASTS”).  On March 12, 2021, NPA filed Form DEFM14A (the “Proxy”) announcing that NPA stockholders could vote on the proposed merger on April 1, 2021.  The Proxy further described, among other things, the terms of the proposed merger and notified stockholders of their right to redeem their shares of NPA common stock by March 30, 2021.  Stockholders who did not redeem their shares became ASTS stockholders following the closing of the merger. 

On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff Earnest Taylor (“Taylor”) commenced litigation on behalf of himself and a putative class of ASTS stockholders challenging the merger’s fairness and the sufficiency of the Proxy’s disclosures (the “Taylor Action”).  On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff Dean William Drulias (“Drulias”) commenced litigation on behalf of himself and a putative class of ASTS stockholders challenging the merger’s fairness and the sufficiency of the Proxy’s disclosures (the “Drulias Action”).  On April 29, 2024, the Delaware Court consolidated the Taylor Action and the Drulias Action into the Action, and named Taylor and Drulias lead plaintiffs in the Action.  On May 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint (the “Complaint”) setting forth allegations related to, among other things, alleged omissions in the Proxy regarding ASTS’s actual value, projected financial performance, and technological capabilities.

On July 15, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.  The Delaware Court scheduled oral argument on defendants’ motion to dismiss to be held on February 3, 2025.  Prior to the scheduled argument, Plaintiffs determined that they no longer wished to pursue the Action and notified the Delaware Court.  The Court therefore did not proceed with the oral argument on defendants’ motion to dismiss.  On February 11, 2025, Plaintiffs and defendants filed a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), seeking to dismiss the Action with prejudice only as to Drulias and Taylor. 

On February 18, 2025, the Delaware Court directed the parties to provide notice to members of the proposed stockholder class of the proposed dismissal and their opportunity to move to intervene and take over prosecution of the Action.  The stockholder class consists of record and beneficial holders of NPA common stock who held such stock as of March 30, 2021, and through the closing of the merger (except defendants, and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with any of the defendants), and their successors in interest.  Only members of the stockholder class who held NPA stock and did not redeem their shares prior to the merger may be able to take over the Action.

On March 10, 2025, the Delaware Court approved the parties’ proposal (i) to issue this press release on Business Wire and (ii) to publish this press release on the Investor Relations section of ASTS’s website. 

Interested parties may obtain additional information concerning the Action by contacting Co-Lead Counsel at the telephone numbers below.  This notice is also available at Co-Lead Counsels’ websites at https://www.gelaw.com and https://zlk.com/.  Stockholders are not to contact the Delaware Court with any questions concerning the proposed dismissal.

Stockholders have until April 14, 2025, to file the appropriate documents with the Delaware Court if they wish to move to intervene and take over the Action.

Contact:

Rebecca Musarra, 302-622-7000, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
Donald J. Enright, 202-524-4290, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Walker v. iLearningsEnginges, Inc., 8:24-cv-02900 is a case currently pending before Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  Plaintiffs in the case allege iLearning reported fraudulent revenue and expenses due to undisclosed and faked related-party transactions.  

On February 27, 2025, Judge Chasanow appointed Louis Leveque as lead plaintiff in the case.  Judge Chasanow also appointed Levi & Korsinsky as lead counsel, stating in the Court's Order "Levi & Korsinsky LLP has ample experience prosecuting securities cases of this nature." 

A copy of the Court's Order can be viewed here. 

On February 26, 2024, Judge Sean D. Jordan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas consolidated three securities fraud class actions filed against DZS Inc. on behalf of shareholders.  Judge Jordan appointed Jason S. Hawke as lead plaintiff.  

The Court also appointed Levi & Korsinsky as lead counsel, noting "Levi & Korsinsky has served as lead counsel in various securities class action that have resulted in substantial recoveries for shareholders."

The Complaint alleges DZI made substantial errors on its financial statements for the period ending March 31, 2023.  These errors revealed the Company had ongoing, undisclosed issues with its internal controls.  

A copy of the Court's order appointing Mr. Hawke lead plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky as counsel can be found here. 

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is pleased to announce the settlement of In re: PureCycle Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, a stockholder derivative suit on behalf of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. relating to, among other things, the company’s polypropylene recycling processes.

Notice of Proposed Settlement

Stipulation of Settlement

On February 18, 2025, Hon. Dale E. Ho appointed nationally-recognized securities law firm Levi & Korsinsky as lead counsel in a class-action lawsuit against Xerox Holdings.

Judge Ho selected Richard A. Harrison as lead plantiff in the case and Levi & Korskinsy as Harrison's counsel.  

The lawsuit alleges Xerox misled investors about the financial benefits of the Company's "Reinvention" initiatives which Xerox underwent in 2023-2024.  The Reinvention was meant to streamline Xerox's product offerings and create "operating efficiencies" to improve the Company's bottom line.  In reality, initiatives caused a 12.4% revenue reduction because the Revention was disruptive to the Company and over-simplified Xerox's offerings.  

The case is designated Wilson v. Xerox Holdings Corp.,, 1:24-cv-08809.  A copy of the order can be found here. 

A settlement has been reached on behalf of persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired Stronghold's Class A common stock on or before December 20, 2021, pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection the Company's October 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") and were damaged thereby.  The settlement provides for the payment of $4.75 Million in cash and the US dollar value of 25 bitcoins to eligible class members.  The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved on December 16, 2024. 

The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on the defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, during its IPO, concerning the delivery targets for Stronghold's agreements with Bitcoin miner suppliers, the computing power that Stronghold expected from the miners its purchased, and Stronghold's ability to reach certain computing power levels across the Company's entire mining operations by December 31, 2021.  

The proof of claim deadline is April 4, 2025, and the hearing on the Motion for Final Approval of the settlement is scheduled for April 11, 2025.

A settlement has been reached and was preliminarily approved on January 13, 2025. The settlement provides for the payment of $80 million to eligible class members. Co-lead plaintiff SLG Cloudbank Holdings, LLC alleged violations of §§ 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§ 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on the defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements concerning Grab’s driver supply and incentive spending during its public debut. 

 The proof of claim deadline is April 24, 2025, and the hearing on the Motion for Final Approval is scheduled for May 15, 2025.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is pleased to announce the settlement of In re Ryder System, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Action, a stockholder derivative suit on behalf of Ryder System, Inc. relating to the stated residual value of the company's trucking fleet. 

Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement

Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Derivative Actions

Summary Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Derivative Actions

On January 6, 2025, Hon. Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha appointed nationally-recognized securities law firm Levi & Korsinsky, LLP  as lead counsel in a class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corp.  In the same order, Judge Aenlle-Rocha appointed Dr. Prafulchandra Patel as lead plaintiff.  In appointing Levi & Korsinsky to lead the case, Judge Aenlle-Rocha wrote "[t]he firm has substantial experience litigating securities class actions."

The Plaintiffs that allege Toyota tested several of its vehicle models using methods that deviated from standards set by the Japanese government.  They further allege Toyota presented "inadequate data" about pedestrian and occupant protection tests and crash tests for several models.  Finally, the complaint alleges that Toyota made false or misleading statements on forms filed with the SEC about these deficiencies and its overall legal compliance.  

The case continues as Patel v. Toyota Motor Corp., case no. 2:24-cv-05284-FLA.  A copy of the order can be viewed here. 

A class action lawsuit against Seastar Medical Holding Corp. will proceed with Levi & Korsinsky as lead counsel.  

On December 27, 2024, Federal Magistrate Judge Timothy O'Hara signed an order consolidating multiple lawsuits against Seastar into a single suit.  The suits allege Seastar deceived investors about aspects of a merger, including an application to the FDA.  

The Court found Levi & Korskinsky to be well-suited to lead this litigation, writing the firm is "is experienced in securities litigation an has been lead counsel in similar actions."   The Court appointed Raffi Khajerian as lead plaintiff. 

A copy of the order can be found here. 

There is a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors in GitLab Inc.(NASDAQ: GTLB) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The action seeks monetary recovery for a class of shareholders. On December 23, 2024, District Judge Eumi K. Lee appointed Dutch Smith as Lead Plaintiff and approved Mr. Smith's selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the document can be viewed here.

Holzer v. Bumble Inc., et al., 1:24-cv-01131-RP is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Bumble Inc. (NASDAQ: BMBL) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On December 19, 2024, District Judge Robert Pitman appointed Matthew Roberts as Lead Plaintiff and approved Mr. Roberts' selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the document can be viewed here.

The attorneys of Levi & Korsinsky look forward to fighting for the rights of New Fortress Energy shareholders in an ongoing class action lawsuit. On December 17, 2024, Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated two securities fraud class actions filed against New Fortress Energy Inc. on behalf of shareholders. Class member Jack DeCicco was appointed lead counsel, and Judge Koeltl approved Mr. DeCicco's selection Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel in the consolidated case, which is designated In re New Fortress Energy Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:24-cv-07032-JGK. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

On December 10,2024, Judge Kenneth M. Karas, United States District Judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, signed an order consolidating two class actions filed on behalf of shareholders of Teladoc Health, Inc. who were harmed by alleged securities fraud.  The consolidated case is captioned Stary v. Teladoc, Inc. et al., 7:24-cv-03849-KMK.

In addition to consolidating the cases, Judge Karas appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

On September 13, 2024, Donald J. Enright delivered plaintiff’s oral argument against Defendants’ motions to dismiss in Turnbull v. Klein, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1125-SG in the Delaware Court of Chancery in Georgetown, Delaware. Following the argument, Vice Chancellor Samuel Glasscock III summed up his feelings about the argument, noting: “Mr. Enright, the way you laid out your argument . . . is extraordinarily helpful to a Court, and it's a textbook of how oral arguments should be done. That's not taking anything away from what the defendants did. But that was, I thought, classic, and I'm glad my clerks and interns and Supreme Court clerks got to hear it.” The Court has taken the matter under advisement and the parties await the decision of the Vice Chancellor.

Beaumont v. Paucek, et al., 8:24-cv-01723-DLB is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The action was filed on behalf of investors in 2U, Inc. (NASDAQ: TWOU) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On September 13, 2024, District Judge Deborah L. Boardman appointed Peter Gysbers as Lead Plaintiff and approved Mr. Gysbers's selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the document can be viewed here.

On October 15, 2024, a a group of three Co-Lead Plaintiffs was appointed in the class action lawsuit captioned Crain v. MacroGenics, Inc., et al., 8:24-cv-02184-ABA. United States District Judge in the District of Maryland, Adam B. Abelson, signed the order that also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Co-Lead Counsel in the action. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

The L&K team looks forward to representing class members who lost money investing in MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX).

Edward M. Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al., 2:24-cv-00513-JLB-KCD is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: HTZ) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On August 14, 2024, Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek appointed Robert Stephen as Lead Plaintiff and approved his selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the document can be viewed here.

A class action lawsuit was recently filed on behalf of investors in Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart (NASDAQ:CART) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company. The lawsuit (Stephens v. Maplebear Inc., et al., 24-cv-00465-EJD) is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On July 1, 2024, Judge Edward J. Davila signed an order appointing James Cheng as Lead Plaintiff and appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP lead counsel. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Lucid Alternative Fund, LP v. Innoviz Technologies Ltd., et al., 1:24-cv-01971-AT is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Innoviz Technologies Ltd. (NASDAQ: INVZ) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On June 4, 2024, District Judge Analisa Torres signed an order appointing three investors, Jackob Raz, Harvey Tesler, and Joel Leon, as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the class. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Levi & Korsinsky (“L&K”) has once again been recognized by Institutional Shareholder Services Securities Class Action Services (“ISS SCAS”) as one of the top 50 plaintiffs’ firms in the United States, recovering over $133 million for investors in securities-related class action settlements in 2023.

On April 22, 2024, ISS SCAS released its “Top Plaintiff Law Firms of 2023” report, listing Levi & Korsinsky both for number of settlements it achieved 2023 and for the size of those recoveries. L&K has been in the top 50 of the ISS SCAS rankings for total amounts recovered for investors for 9 of the last 10 years.

We look forward to continuing to provide investors with exceptional representation in 2024 and beyond.

Neilsen v. Lantronix, Inc., et al., 8:24-cv-00385-FWS-JDE is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Lantronix, Inc. (NASDAQ: LTRX) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On May 7, 2024, United States District Judge Fred W. Slaughter signed an order appointing two Lantronix shareholders, Robert Ratliff and Hana Touati, as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approving their choice of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the class. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP recently filed a class action lawsuit  on behalf of current and former stockholders in AST SpaceMobile, Inc. (NASDAQ:ASTS) who allegedly suffered losses due to the merger of New Providence Acquisition Corporation and AST & Science, LLC in April 2021. The lawsuit (In re AST SpaceMobile, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2023-1292-PAF) is currently pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On April 29, 2024, Vice Chancellor Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr. signed an order appointing Earnest Taylor and Dean William Drulias  as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as Co-Lead Counsel. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP recently filed a class action lawsuit  on behalf of current and former stockholders in BLADE Air Mobility, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLDE) who allegedly suffered losses due to the merger of Experience Investment Corporation and BLADE Urban Air Mobility, Inc. in 2021. The lawsuit (Drulias v. Affeldt, et al., Consolidated C.A. No. 2024-161-SG) is currently pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On April 19, 2024, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III signed an order appointing Brian McFee and Dean William Drulias  as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as Co-Lead Counsel. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Shareholder Dr. Calvin E. Mein has been appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action captioned In re Paycom Software Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:23-cv-01019-F, currently pending in the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.  The action concerns allegations of securities fraud against Paycom Software Inc., and plaintiffs seek monetary recovery for aggrieved investors. Judge Stephen P. Friot signed the order appointing Dr. Mein on April 23, 2024 and approved his selection of counsel, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel.

A copy of the order can be viewed here.

A class action lawsuit was recently filed on behalf of investors in Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMLX) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company. The lawsuit (Shih V. Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 1:24-cv-00988-AS) is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On April 17, 2024, Judge Arun Subramanian signed an order appointing Jeff Schryver as Lead Plaintiff and appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP lead counsel. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

On April 15, 2024, Judge Larry R. Hicks of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada consolidated two securities fraud class actions filed against Biovie, Inc. on behalf of shareholders. Judge Hicks also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel in the consolidated case, which is designated  In re Biovie Inc. Securities Litigation, 3:24-cv-00035-LRH-CSD.  A copy of the order signed by Judge Hicks can be viewed here.

Case Introduction

Marselis v. Fox Factory Holding Corp., et al 1:24-cv-00747-TWT

On February 20, 2024, investors sued Fox Factory Holding Corp. (“Fox Factory” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Fox Factory stock at artificially inflated prices between May 6, 2021 and November 2, 2023 (the “Class Period”) They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/fox-factory-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Fox Factory (NASDAQ:FOXF) is a self-described “global leader in the design and manufacturing of premium products” for  “specialty sports and on- and off-road vehicles.”

As such, Fox Factory says it directly supplies  shocks, suspension, and components to leading powered vehicle and bicycle original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”). It also claims that it engages in the provision of products in the aftermarket “through its global network of retailers and distributors and through direct-to-consumer channels.”

The Company says it another part of its business strategy is the acquisition of complementary businesses. Once integrated, these acquisitions purportedly allow Fox Factory  to expand its reach beyond its primary parts business. Fox Factory says that in turn allows it to  diversify its product offerings and increasing its market potential.

Summary of Facts

Fox Factory and five of its current and/or former senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding important information about the Company’s business, financial condition, and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about product demand and inventory levels from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Fox Factory stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out after the markets closed on November 2, 2023. That’s when the Company filed a form containing disquieting news with the SEC. It was in this context that the Company revealed that its net sales for the third quarter of fiscal year 2023 decreased 19.1% year-over-year due to “higher levels of inventory across various channels.” To make matters worse, Fox Factory also cut its full-year sales guidance from between $1.67B and $1.70B to between $1.45B and $1.47B, citing continued inventory destocking in its SSG segment.

A closer look…

As alleged, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

While reporting financial its financial results for its first quarter fiscal year 2022 on May 5, 2022, for example, Fox Factory stated in relevant part: “the increase in [SSG] sales [was] driven by continued strong demand in both the original equipment manufacturer and aftermarket channels

Then, during an earnings call on February 23, 2023, the Company’s CEO (an Individual Defendant) stated in relevant part: “I believe end customer demand, even though seasonality has finally returned, continues to be generally positive and the largest challenges are a function of supply chain bloat and the corresponding cash flow challenges within our OEM and aftermarket partners.”

On the same earnings call, the Company’s CEO also stated in pertinent part: “It’s really about the speed in which the current inventory growth kind of cleans itself up. So if that happens majority in Q1 and you see it much better in the range. If you see it happen in Q3, it's going to be much worse in the range. So it’s not much of, it’s not really as much about demand.”

Lastly, in a call with analysts on May 4, 2023, the Company’s CEO stated in pertinent part: “[we are] seeing customer demand in certain markets picking back up[,]” which gave “us confidence that the demand is not necessarily gone. As a matter of fact, it hasn’t gone in SSG.”

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased the Company’s stock during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole. To learn more about your options, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/fox-factory-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 22, 2024. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court.

Case Introduction

Yuksel v. Ventyx Biosciences, Inc., et al 3:24-cv-00415-AGS-DDL

On March 1, 2024, investors sued Ventyx Biosciences, Inc. (“Ventyx” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of California.

The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Ventyx stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (as defined in the complaint) issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering conducted on or about October 21, 2021 (the “IPO” or “Offering”); and/or between October 21, 2021 and November 6, 2023 (the “Class Period”).

Plaintiffs are now seeking for financial compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged negligence and/or misconduct during those times. To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, go to: http://zlk.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/VTYX-Complaint.pdf?wire=31

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Ventyx (NASDAQ:VTYX) is a self-described clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company.

As such, the Company says it concentrates its efforts on  developing innovative oral medicines for use in the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders. The Company also believes its  “ability to efficiently discover and develop” distinct drug candidates will allow it  to tackle “important unmet medical needs. Specifically, the Company claims it will be able to do so  with  oral therapies that “shift the immunology markets from injectables to oral drugs.”

According to the complaint, Ventyx’s lead clinical product candidate is VTX958, a selective allosteric tyrosine kinase type 2 inhibitor for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and Crohn’s disease. As also detailed in the complaint, the Company Ventyx launched a Phase 2 clinical trial of VTX958 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (the “Phase 2 SERENITY Trial”) two years ago.

Summary of Facts

The lawsuit alleges negligent preparation of the Offering Documents. As a result, they contain untrue statements of critical facts, but lack corrective statements and legally required disclosures.

It also alleges that the Company and three of its senior officers (the “Exchange Act Individual Defendants”) deceived investors by lying and withholding truthful information about Ventyx’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

In particular, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the efficacy of VTX958  in the treatment of psoriasis, and its clinical and/or commercial prospects, from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Ventyx stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out after the markets closed on November 6, 2023. That’s when Ventyx issued a press release announcing results from the Phase 2 SERENITY Trial. In this  context, the Company disclosed that, “[a]lthough the trial achieved its primary endpoint, the magnitude of efficacy observed did not meet our internal target to support advancement of VTX958 in plaque psoriasis.” Accordingly, the Company said it would “terminate ongoing activities in the Phase 2 plaque psoriasis trial effective immediately” and “terminate the ongoing Phase 2 trial of VTX958 in psoriatic arthritis.”

A closer look…

As alleged, the Company and/or Exchange Act Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

In a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, for instance, the Company’s CEO (an Exchange Act Individual Defendant) stated in pertinent part: “We believe our capital position, supplemented by funds raised via our October IPO, provides us the opportunity to advance our clinical pipeline towards multiple important data catalysts.”

Then, in a March 23, 2022 press release, the Company’s CEO stated in pertinent part: “We believe VTX958 has potential to be a best-in-class allosteric TYK2 inhibitor, with development opportunities in multiple immune-mediated diseases encompassing large markets currently dominated by biologics.”

Lastly, during an earnings call held on May 12, 2022, the Company’s CEO stated in relevant part: “So let me begin with VTX958, our novel allosteric TYK2 inhibitor. Based on its preclinical profile that we have disclosed earlier, VTX958 is highly selective for TYK2. It shows no measurable inhibition of all other JAK isoforms.”

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased the Company’s stock for any reason described herein, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole. To learn more about your options, go to: http://zlk.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/VTYX-Complaint.pdf?wire=31

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 30, 2024. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court.

Adriano Ladewig v. BioNTech SE, et al., 2:24-cv-00337-DMG-SSC is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The action was filed on behalf of investors in BioNTech SE (NASDAQ: BNTX) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On April 4, 2024, District Judge Dolly M. Gee appointed Docdeer Foundation as Lead Plaintiff and approved Docdeer's selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the document can be viewed here.

Case Introduction

Schlaegel v. Palo Alto Networks Inc., et al 5:24-cv-01156

On February 26, 2024, investors sued Palo Alto Networks Inc. (“Palo Alto Networks” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Palo Alto Networks stock at artificially inflated prices between August 18, 2023 and February 20, 2024 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/palo-alto-networks-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31  

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Palo Alto Networks (NASDAQ:PANW) purportedly does business as “the world’s cybersecurity leader.”

As such, the Company claims that it engages in the provision of “next-gen cybersecurity to thousands of customers globally, across all sectors.” Specifically, Palo Alto Networks offers an enterprise cybersecurity platform for network security, cloud security, and various cloud-delivered security.

According to the Company, these  cybersecurity platforms and services are all backed by “industry-leading threat intelligence and strengthened by state-of-the-art automation.”

Summary of Facts

Palo Alto Networks and three of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding important information about the Company’s business practices, financial standing, and prospects during the Class Period.

In particular, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the efficacy of certain business initiatives and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Palo Alto Networks stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in events that transpired after the market closed on February 20, 2024. First, the Company announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2024 and lowered its third quarter and full-year billings and revenue guidance, with expected billings growth between 2-4 percent and total revenue growth between 13-15 percent.

During an ensuing earnings call that same day, the Company’s CEO (an Individual Defendant) explained that “our guidance is a consequence of us driving a shift in our strategy in wanting to accelerate both our platformization and consolidation and activating our AI leadership.” He also revealed that U.S. federal

government deals for several large projects did not close and resulted in “a significant shortfall in our U.S. federal government business” that is expected to continue into the third and fourth quarters of 2024. He then concluded by noting that “[t]he situation [sic] started off towards the end of Q1 were worsened in Q2.”

A closer look…

As alleged, Palo Alto Networks and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

During an earnings call held at the beginning of the Class Period, for instance, the Company’s CEO stated in pertinent part: “Our platformization is continuing to drive large deal momentum. One way to illustrate the traction of our next-generation security capability across network security, cloud security and SOC automation, so look at the makeup of some of our largest deals.”

Then, during a conference call on September 7, 2023, the Company’s CEO stated in relevant part: “Yes. Yes. I think our newest platform around the SOC is -- has tremendous potential. I think that's kind of the integrated platform. Most of our competitors in that space are 15-year old tech. I think it’s the CrowdStrike, Palo Alto, SentinelOne moment that happened to endpoints, which is happening to SOC except to standard SOCs.”

Next, during an earnings call on November 15, 2023, the Company’s CEO stated in relevant part: “… a federal government agency signed a $25 million expansion transaction, including adding Cortex XDR and Prisma Access in highly competitive situations, expanding their network security footprint. This customer has now spent over $100 million over its lifetime across our [ chief ] platform.”

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased the Company’s stock during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole. To learn more about your options, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/palo-alto-networks-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 26, 2024. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court.

Case Introduction

D’Agostino v. Innodata Inc., et al 2:24-cv-00971

On February 21, 2024, investors sued Innodata Inc. (“Innodata” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Innodata stock at artificially inflated prices between May 9, 2019 and  February 14, 2024 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/innodata-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Innodata (NASDAQ:INOD) is a self-described global data engineering company.

As such, the Company claims it delivers  “the promise of A”I to many of the world's  top companies. Specifically, Innodata says it provide AI-enabled software platforms and managed services for AI data annotation, AI digital transformation, and industry-specific business processes. The Company also says its product offerings feature its  “low-code Innodata AI technology platform.”

The Company’s claims about its AI technology are at the crux of the current complaint.

Summary of Facts

Innodata and three of its current and/or former senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding important information about the Company’s business during the Class Period.

In particular, they are accused of omitting truthful information about Innodata’s AI technology and ancillary issues from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Innodata stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a report published by Wolfpack Research on February 15, 2024.

Among other things, the “Wolfpack Report” alleged that Innodata’s AI is really “smoke and mirrors” and that the Company’s marketing claims are like “putting lipstick on a pig.” It further alleged that “other companies were only hiring Innodata for cheap labor and its operations were powered by thousands of low-wage offshore workers, not proprietary AI technology.” Lastly, the Wolfpack Report alleged  that Innodata’s “total investment in R&D over the past five years was only $4.4 million, with even less allocated to R&D in 2023 than what was spent on promoting its “AI” technology through press releases.”

A closer look…

As alleged, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

During an earnings call held at the beginning of the Class Period, for instance, the Company’s CEO (an Individual Defendant) stated in pertinent part: “… we now believe we can turn our AI focus externally, building these tested technologies into market-facing services and product offerings, designed around helping enterprises integrate AI into events, document and content transformation, which in turn are expected to increase revenues and drive growth for us.”

Then, during a March 12, 2020 conference call, Innodata’s CEO stated in pertinent part: “We’re working with the leading information providers, applying AI to continent operations on their behalf. And we’re receiving very good market recognition in those markets for having done that.”

In another conference call held on May 14, 2020, the Company’s CEO stated in relevant part: “Last year, as you recall, we pivoted the company from a publishing services provider to a data engineering company, rolling out new products and solutions to help companies in wider markets, prepare data for AI and put AI to work in their businesses.”

Finally, in an annual report filed with the SEC on March 12, 2021, the Company stated in relevant part: “Our proprietary, state-of-the-art Goldengate platform is our core AI technology stack. It serves up no-code AI with transfer learning built on generative language models we have developed over the past five years of deploying industrial deep neural networks. Goldengate serves as the foundational technology for the AI projects we perform for customers, as well as the AI-under the-hood that powers our data annotation platform and our industry platforms.”

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased the Company’s stock during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole. To learn more about your options, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/innodata-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 22, 2024. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court.

Case Introduction

Trindade v. Sunnova Energy International Inc., et al 4:24-cv-00569

On February 16, 2024, investors sued Sunnova Energy International Inc. (“Sunnova” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Sunnova stock at artificially inflated prices between February 25, 2020 and December 7, 2023 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/sunnova-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Sunnova (NYSE:NOVA) is a self-described industry-leading adaptive energy services company.

As such, the Company claims that it concentrates its efforts on making clean energy “more accessible, reliable and affordable for homeowners and businesses.” The Company also says it provides solar panels with and without batteries, EV chargers, generators and more.

According to its website, the Company was founded in Houston in 2012. The Company’s website also indicates that Sunnova now has more than 400,000 customers, and more than dealers, sub-dealers and builders in 50 states and territories.

Summary of Facts

Sunnova and two of its senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding important information about the Company’s business practices and compliance policies during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about certain conduct from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Sunnova stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that happened on November 22, 2023 and December 8, 2023. First, the Washington Free Beacon published an article stating that “that several consumer complaints had been brought against the Company for issues ranging from maintenance delays to predatory sales tactics used against elderly homeowners.”

Then, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (“Rodgers”), Chair of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the “House Energy Committee”), and Senator John Barrasso (“Barrasso”), ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (the “Senate Energy Committee”), sent a letter to the DOE and Sunnova seeking information related to the LPO Loan and Project Hestia following the release of the ‘disturbing’ reports regarding the Company. Specifically, the letter requested additional information regarding the LPO’s awareness of and treatment of Sunnova’s allegedly predatory business practices.”

A closer look…

As alleged, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

In an Annual Report filed with the SEC at the beginning of the Class Period, for example, Sunnova stated in relevant part: “Our solar service agreements are designed to offer the customer energy cost savings and bill stability relative to centralized utility prices, often resulting in an immediate reduction in the customer’s overall utility bill, with little or no upfront costs.”

Then, in a February 24, 2021 press release, the Company’s CEO (an Individual Defendant) stated in relevant part: “Sunnova is well positioned to navigate the current market environment and to lead a decarbonized and decentralized energy transition while providing our customers with a better energy service at a better price.”

Finally, in an April 20, 2023 press release, Sunnova stated in relevant part: “Sunnova [. . .] today announced a conditional commitment by the [LPO] to provide an up to $3.0 billion partial loan guarantee, which equates to a 90% guarantee of up to $3.3 billion of financing to support loans originated by Sunnova under a new solar loan channel named “Project Hestia. Project Hestia would provide disadvantaged individuals and communities with increased access to Sunnova services by indirectly and partially guaranteeing the cash flows associated with those consumers’ loans.”

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased the Company’s stock during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole. To learn more about your options, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/sunnova-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 16, 2024. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court.

Case Introduction

Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., et al 2:24-cv-00196-KT

On February 16, 2024, investors sued DICK”S Sporting Goods, Inc. (“DSG” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired DSG stock at artificially inflated prices between May 25, 2022 and August 21, 2023 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/dicks-sporting-goods-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

The Company (NYSE:DKS) does business as a “leading sporting goods retailer.”

As such, DSG sells sports equipment, clothing, footwear, and accessories to customers throughout the United States. Specifically, the Company does so online, and on its app, as well as at brick-and-mortar locations. According to the complaint, the Company now has more than 700 “physical locations” throughout the country.

The Company says its history dates to 1948, with humble beginnings as a “modest bait and tackle store” in Binghamton, NY.  Within a few years, the Company’s young founder, who accepted $300 from his grandmother to get the venture off the ground, soon made more products available at the shop. The second shop opened in Vestal, NY, in 1971.

The business remained in the family, but under new leadership, from the mid-80s onward. DSG’s growth continued through the end of the 20^th century and into the dawn of the 21^st century, when it opened its 100^th store in Kansas City, Missouri. The Company began trading publicly in 2002, and had more than 140 stores in operation by the end of that year.

Summary of Facts

DSG and three of its senior officers and/or directors (the “Individual Defendants”) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding crucial information about the Company’s business and financial standing during the Class Period.

In particular, they are accused of omitting truthful information about DSG’s inventory, margins, and prospects, from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused DSG stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on August 22, 2023. That’s when the Company announced “disappointing results for the second quarter of fiscal 2023.”  According to the complaint, DSG mostly blamed the “significantly reduced margins and profitability” on “promotional sales of excess Outdoor inventory.”

A closer look…

As alleged, DSG and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period.

During an earnings call held at the beginning of the Class Period, for instance, the Company’s CEO (an Individual Defendant) stated in relevant part: “[W]e had anticipated that certain categories, like fitness and outdoor equipment would normalize this year. And they have normalized as we expected...” However, she also added that,  “[w]e are not anticipating any significant markdown risk” because the Outdoor segment, among others, “ha[d] rebaseline[d] meaningfully higher than our pre-pandemic volume.”

Then, during an earnings call on November 22, 2022, the Company’s CEO stated in pertinent part: “So we absolutely believe in the structural changes in our overall margin. I would point to the fact that our EBT margin, even with that investment that we made to clean up apparel, it was 10.3%. So over 3x what it was pre-2019, we have tremendous confidence in the long-term sustainability of our profitability.”

Finally, during an earnings call on March 7, 2023, the Company’s CFO (an Individual Defendant) stated in pertinent part: “[W]e continue to address targeted inventory overages due to late arriving Spring] product. As a result of these actions, our inventory is in great shape as we start 2023.”

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased the Company’s stock during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole. To learn more about your options, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/dicks-sporting-goods-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 22, 2023. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court.

Case Introduction

Neilsen v. Lantronix, Inc., et al 8:24-cv-00385

On February 23, 2024, investors sued Lantronix, Inc. (“Lantronix” or the “Company”) in United States District Court, Central District of California.

The federal securities class action alleges that plaintiffs acquired Lantronix stock at artificially inflated prices between May 11, 2023 and February 8, 2024 (the “Class Period”). Plaintiffs are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/lantronix-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Lantronix (NASDAQ:LTRX) purportedly does business as a “global leader” in the Internet technology space.

As such, the Company claims it engages in the provision of Software as a Service (SaaS) and connectivity services. Lantronix says it also provides engineering services, intelligent hardware and turnkey solutions for the Internet of Things (IoT) and Remote Environment Management (REM) to its customers.

According to the complaint, the Company’s “solutions” supposedly target high growth applications in specific verticals such as smart grids, intelligent transportation, smart cities, and artificial intelligence (“AI”) data centers.

As also detailed in the complaint, Lantronix makes its solutions available through distributors, resellers, and direct sales to larger original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) and end users, as well as through its ecommerce site.

Summary of Facts

Lantronix and two of its current and/or former senior officers (the “Individual Defendants) now stand accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding crucial information about the Company’s business practices and prospects during the Class Period.

In particular, they are accused of omitting truthful information about demand for certain products, inventory, and ancillary matters, from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Lantronix stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out on February 8, 2024. That’s when the Company announced its announcing its financial results for the second quarter of its fiscal year 2024 in a press release. In this context, Lantronix negatively revised its fiscal year 2024 guidance, advising that “[f]or fiscal year 2024, the company [now] expects revenue in a range of $155 million to $16 million”—versus the previously provided range of $175 million to $185 million—“and non-GAAP EPS in a range of $0.35 to $0.45 per share”—versus the previously provided range of $0.50 to $0.60 per share.

During an ensuing  conference call with analysts and investors that same day, Company management mostly attributed the change to “lower expected sales for our embedded IOT solutions as a result of two factors”, namely, “[a] general slowdown in our broad based channel business as customers work through their inventories, and an embedded compute design win in video applications that was slated for revenue in the second half of fiscal 2024 that pushed into fiscal 2025.”

A closer look…

As alleged, Lantronix and/or the Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

During a conference call with analysts and investors at the outset of the Class Period, for instance, the Company’s then-CEO (an Individual Defendant) stated in pertinent part: “We need only modest performance from our classic products to meet our growth target due to market share gains and new customer revenue despite a softening macroeconomic environment.”

Next, during a conference call with analysts and investors on September 7, 2023, the Company’s CFO (an Individual Defendant) stated in pertinent part: “[W]e remain confident about the fiscal year ahead of us, and expect to deliver upon the fiscal 2024 guidance that we provided during our previous earnings call.”

Then, in an annual report filed with the SEC just five days later, the Company stated in relevant part: “We are executing on a growth strategy that includes continuous innovation…This strategy is starting to bear fruits as we continue to strengthen our position in the market and more customers come to us for a wider variety of applications.”

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased the Company’s stock during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole. To learn more about your options, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/lantronix-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 23, 2024. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court.

Case Introduction

Marselis v. Fox Factory Holding Corp., et al 1:24-cv-00747-TWT

On February 20, 2024, investors sued Fox Factory Holding Corp. (“Fox Factory” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Fox Factory stock at artificially inflated prices between May 6, 2021 and November 2, 2023 (the “Class Period”) They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/fox-factory-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

Fox Factory (NASDAQ:FOXF) is a self-described “global leader in the design and manufacturing of premium products” for  “specialty sports and on- and off-road vehicles.”

As such, Fox Factory says it directly supplies  shocks, suspension, and components to leading powered vehicle and bicycle original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”). It also claims that it engages in the provision of products in the aftermarket “through its global network of retailers and distributors and through direct-to-consumer channels.”

The Company says it another part of its business strategy is the acquisition of complementary businesses. Once integrated, these acquisitions purportedly allow Fox Factory  to expand its reach beyond its primary parts business. Fox Factory says that in turn allows it to  diversify its product offerings and increasing its market potential.

Summary of Facts

Fox Factory and five of its current and/or former senior officers (the “Individual Defendants”) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding important information about the Company’s business, financial condition, and prospects during the Class Period.

Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about product demand and inventory levels from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Fox Factory stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out after the markets closed on November 2, 2023. That’s when the Company filed a form containing disquieting news with the SEC. It was in this context that the Company revealed that its net sales for the third quarter of fiscal year 2023 decreased 19.1% year-over-year due to “higher levels of inventory across various channels.” To make matters worse, Fox Factory also cut its full-year sales guidance from between $1.67B and $1.70B to between $1.45B and $1.47B, citing continued inventory destocking in its SSG segment.

A closer look…

As alleged, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

While reporting financial its financial results for its first quarter fiscal year 2022 on May 5, 2022, for example, Fox Factory stated in relevant part: “the increase in [SSG] sales [was] driven by continued strong demand in both the original equipment manufacturer and aftermarket channels

Then, during an earnings call on February 23, 2023, the Company’s CEO (an Individual Defendant) stated in relevant part: “I believe end customer demand, even though seasonality has finally returned, continues to be generally positive and the largest challenges are a function of supply chain bloat and the corresponding cash flow challenges within our OEM and aftermarket partners.”

On the same earnings call, the Company’s CEO also stated in pertinent part: “It’s really about the speed in which the current inventory growth kind of cleans itself up. So if that happens majority in Q1 and you see it much better in the range. If you see it happen in Q3, it's going to be much worse in the range. So it’s not much of, it’s not really as much about demand.”

Lastly, in a call with analysts on May 4, 2023, the Company’s CEO stated in pertinent part: “[we are] seeing customer demand in certain markets picking back up[,]” which gave “us confidence that the demand is not necessarily gone. As a matter of fact, it hasn’t gone in SSG.”

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased the Company’s stock during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole. To learn more about your options, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/fox-factory-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 22, 2024. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court.

On March 12, 2024, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the motion to dismiss in part in the In re Grab Holdings Limited securities class action, sustaining co-lead plaintiffs' §§ 11, 14(a), and 15 claims with respect to several alleged false and misleading statements in the proxy/registration statement through which Grab went public in a merger with SPAC Altimeter Growth Corp. The case alleges that the proxy/registration statement misled investors about Grab’s use of driver and consumer incentives, which unbeknownst to investors, negatively impacted the Company’s financial and business prospects.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is co-lead counsel representing co-lead plaintiff SLG Cloudbank Holdings, LLC and the class. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Case Introduction

Cement Masons’ and Plasters’ Local No. 502 Pension Fund v. Inmode Ltd., et al 2:24-cv-01219

On February 14, 2024, investors sued InMode Ltd. (“InMode” or the “Company”) in United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired InMode stock at artificially inflated prices between June 4, 2021, and October 12, 2023 (the “Class Period”). They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the Company’s alleged misconduct during that time. To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/inmode-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

Summary of the Allegations

Company Background

InMode (NASDAQ:INMD) is a self-described leading global provider of innovative and award winning medical technologies.

Accordingly, the Company says it engages in the development, manufacturing and marketing of platforms that use new radio-frequency (RF) based technology. The Company also claims that these platforms are meant to facilitate  “new emerging minimally-invasive procedures and improve existing surgical procedures.” Specifically, the Company says, its platforms can be used in  several surgical specialties, ranging from plastic surgery to gynecological, dermatological and ophthalmological procedures.

Summary of Facts

The Company and four of its senior executives (the Individual Defendants) are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding important information about InMode’s business practices during the Class Period.

In particular, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the pricing of and demand for its products, and its compliance with certain regulations, from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused InMode stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question.

The truth came out in a series of events that occurred between February 17, 2023 and October 12, 2023. The first of these happened just before the markets closed on the 17^th. That’s when an investigative publication “revealed that InMode threatened some customers with legal action over complaints made about the Company’s devices and sales tactics.” The customers also stated that “InMode offered to replace defective products on the condition of signing confidentiality agreements with non-disparagement clauses.’

Then, before the markets opened on the 12^th, InMode lowered its full-year revenue guidance, blaming it on higher interest rates, tighter leasing approval standards, and bottlenecks in loan processing.

Later that same day, “an investigative publication announced a forthcoming report on InMode, relating to the Company’s statements to investors about pricing flexibility of products and margin consistency.” After the close of trading, the publication released that story, revealing that the Company had “routinely and significantly discounted the prices of its devices throughout the Class Period.”

A closer look…

As alleged, the Company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period.

In a quarterly report filed with the SEC on July 28, 2021, for instance, the president of InMode’s North America Division (an Individual Defendant) stated in relevant part: ““We have also seen higher overall transaction amounts, which is attributed to the growing demand for our products. . . . We are pleased to see high physician and patient satisfaction with our products and services.”

Then, in a quarterly report filed with the SEC on May 2, 2022, the same Individual Defendant stated in pertinent part: ““[w]e are optimistic about the overall demand for our products and anticipate that the North American business will continue to grow and be the main revenue contributor for InMode.”

Finally, in a quarterly report filed with the SEC on October 27, 2022, the same Individual Defendant stated in relevant part: “Our performance in North America continues to be the major growth engine for the company, with an emphasis on the Morpheus8 becoming one of the most popular minimally invasive procedures.”

Actions You May Take

If you have purchased the Company’s stock during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole. To learn more about your options, go to: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/inmode-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=31

NOTE: The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is April 15, 2024. You must file an application to be appointed lead plaintiff prior to this deadline in order to be considered by the Court.

Update In re AppHarvest, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-07985-LJL:

A settlement has been reached and was preliminarily approved on March 6, 2024. The settlement provides for the payment of $4.85 million to eligible class members.  Lead plaintiff Alan Narzissenfeld alleged violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on the defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements concerning labor and productivity issues AppHarvest experienced at the Morehead farm, which unbeknownst to investors, negatively affected the Company’s operating results and prospects.

 The hearing on the Motion for Final Approval is scheduled for June 12, 2024.

Proof of Claim Deadline: May 22, 2024
Class Period: February 1, 2021 through August 10, 2021 inclusive
Recovered: $4.85 Million

Wilhite v. Expensify, Inc., et al., 3:23-cv-01784-JR  is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Expensify, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXFY) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On March 11, 2024, Magistrate Jolie A. Russo signed an order appointing Aleem Kanji as Lead Plaintiff and approving Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Lead Counsel. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

On February 29, 2024, ON Semiconductor Corporation shareholder Jeffery S. Lew was appointed Lead Plaintiff in the action captioned Hubacek v. ON Semiconductor Corporation et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-1429-GBW, currently pending in the District Court for the District of Delaware.  The action concerns allegations of securities fraud against ON Semiconductor, and plaintiffs seek monetary recovery for aggrieved investors. Judge Gregory B. Williams also approved Mr. Lew's selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel and Farnan LLP as Liaison Counsel for the action.

A copy of the relevant order can be viewed here.

Update: Douglas v. PLDT Inc., et. al., Case No. CV 23-00885-CJC (MAAx)

Proof of Claim Deadline: June 25, 2024
Class Period: January 1, 2019 through December 21, 2022, inclusive
Recovered: $3 Million

 A settlement has been reached and was preliminarily approved on March 6, 2024. The settlement provides for the payment of $3 million to eligible class members.  Lead plaintiff Dr. Kevin Douglas alleged violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on the defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements concerning PLDT’s historical capital expenditures. In preliminarily approving the settlement, the Honorable Judge Cormac J. Carney noted that Lead Counsel, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, vigorously prosecuted the claims and achieved an exceptional result for the Class.

 The hearing on the Motion for Final Approval is scheduled for August 5, 2024.

Christopher Walling v. Generac Holdings, Inc., et al., 3:23-cv-0808 is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Generac Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: GNRC) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On February 7, 2024, District Judge William M. Conley signed an order appointing Christopher Walling as Lead Plaintiff and appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP  as Lead Counsel for the class. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

In the class action captioned Karsan Value Funds v. Kostecki Brokerage Pty Ltd., C.A. No. 2021-0899-LWW (Del. Ch),  plaintiffs Karsan Value Funds and Robert Gruters, on behalf of themselves and a class comprised of all unaffiliated stockholders of Alloy Steel, Inc. as of September 17, 2021, have reached a proposed settlement with defendants Kostecki Brokerage Pty Ltd., Maria Kostecki, and Steven Kostecki.

On May 18, 2021, Defendants Maria Kostecki and Steven Kostecki, holders of approximately 65% of Alloy Steel’s common stock at that time, proposed a going-private transaction for $2.35 per share. After negotiations, the Kosteckis raised their offer to $2.55 per share. The merger closed on September 17, 2021, entitling the company’s stockholders, excluding the Kostecki family and its affiliated entities, to $2.55 per share in cash per share.

If approved, the settlement will provide a gross recovery of $9,500,000.00 USD in cash for the class, and will resolve all claims in the action. Before subtracting attorneys’ fees, expenses, and administration costs, the settlement would provide an additional $1.90 per share of Alloy Steel common stock held as the date of the merger, or a roughly 75% increase over and above the original $2.55 per share merger consideration.

Levi & Korsinsky are class counsel for plaintiffs in the action. The settlement hearing has been scheduled in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware for April 4, 2024. More information may be found here: https://www.alloysteelstockholdersettlement.com/

Ragan v. Farfecth Limited, et al., 8:23-cv-2857-MJM  is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Farfetch Limited (NYSE: FTCH) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On January 17, 2024, United States District Judge Matthew J. Maddox signed an order appointing Co-Lead Plaintiffs and appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the class. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

On December 11, 2023, the parties in the action captioned Karsan Value Funds v. Kostecki Brokerage Pty Ltd., C.A. No. 2021-0899-LWW (Del. Ch.) entered into a stipulation of settlement. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, is expected to provide a significant benefit to the former minority shareholders of Alloy Steel International Inc. The settlement provides for a payment of $9.5 million to eligible class members, representing an additional $2 per share for eligible class members. Lead plaintiffs Karsan Value Funds and Robert Gruters filed an action alleging that the Alloy Steel’s board and the company’s controlling shareholders did not properly discharge their fiduciary duties in connection with a 2021 going-private transaction whereby Kostecki Brokerage, Alloy Steel’s controlling shareholder, agreed to purchase all outstanding Alloy Steel shares for $2.55 per share consideration. The Delaware Court of Chancery will hold a hearing on April 4, 2024 to approve the settlement.

In the case captioned Elissa M. Roberts v. Bloom Energy Corp., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02935-HSG, a settlement has been reached and was preliminarily approved on October 31, 2023. The settlement provides for the payment of $3 million to eligible class members.  Lead Plaintiff James Everett Hunt and Plaintiffs Juan Rodriguez, Kurt Voutaz, Joel White, Andrew Austin, and Ryan Fishman alleged violations of §§ 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on false and misleading misstatements that the company relating to i) loss contingencies; ii) accounting; iii) weaknesses in internal controls; iv) the life cycle of its fuel cells; v) construction delays affecting its business; and vi) the efficiency and pollution output of its Energy Servers.

The hearing on the Motion for Final Approval is scheduled for April 18, 2024. A copy of the settlement notice can be viewed here.

On December 26, 2023, shareholder Robert J. Titmas was appointed Lead Plaintiff in the action captioned Gurevitch v. KeyCorp et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01520-DCN, currently pending in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  The action concerns allegations of securities fraud against KeyCorp, and plaintiffs seek monetary recovery for aggrieved investors. Judge Donald C. Nugent also approved Mr. Titmas' selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel and Cummins Law LLC as Liaison Counsel for the proposed class.

A copy of the relevant order can be viewed here.

On December 5, 2023, Marilyn L. Huff, Senior District Judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, signed an order appointing a group of plaintiffs, Mason Raines, Thomas O. Martel, and Linna Rae Martel, as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the securities fraud case captioned Lowe V. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. et al., 3:23-cv-01657-H-BLM. The judge also approved Co-Lead Plaintiffs' selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel for the class. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

On November 1, 2023, The United States District Court for the Northern District of California appointed Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in the pending class action lawsuit, Thant V. Rain Oncology Inc. et al., 5:23-cv-03518-EJD. We look forward to using our firm's extensive class action and securities litigation experience to pursue recovery for shareholders.

Review the official court order detailing our appointment Here.

On May 8, 2023, following extensive mediation, The GEO Group, Inc. and aggrieved investors reached a settlement of $3 million in the securities fraud lawsuit pending in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Hartel v. The GEO Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 9:20-cv-81063). This settlement received preliminary approval by the court on July 10, 2023. To view the order preliminarily approving the settlement, click here.

The securities fraud lawsuit was originally filed by investors in November 2020 to address claims that the company and its CEO made false and/or misleading statements regarding the financial impact of the company’s response to COVID-19 outbreaks, alleged medical and labor deficiencies, and the numerous lawsuits stemming therefrom.

Notice has been mailed to those investors identified as being members of the settlement class. To see the notice of pendency, click here. Shareholders who suffered a loss in their investment in The GEO Group during the relevant time frame now have until NOVEMBER 28, 2023 to submit a proof of claim form to the claims administrator:

Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
Hartel Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 3729
Portland, OR   97208-3729

Click here to view a copy of the proof of claim form.

For additional information regarding the settlement, visit www.HartelSecuritiesSettlement.com.

On October 23, 2023, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on six motions made by shareholders seeking to act as lead plaintiff in a securities fraud action against Proterra, Inc.. Judge Freeman consolidated two cases alleging the same wrongdoing by Proterra into the case captioned Villanueva v. Proterra Inc., No. 23-3519. She further denied five of the lead plaintiff motions and granted that of movant Cyress Jam, appointing him Lead Plaintiff. Cyress Jam selected Levi & Korsinsky to represent himself and the class. Judge Freeman approved Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in the consolidated class action lawsuit, and we look forward to aggressively litigating the case for the benefit of shareholders.

A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Shareholders Tonya Hills and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System have been appointed co-Lead Plaintiffs in the action captioned Martin V. Bioxcel Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00915-SVN, currently pending in the District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The action concerns allegations of securities fraud against Bioxcel Therapeutics, Inc., and plaintiffs seek monetary recovery for aggrieved investors. Judge Sarala V. Nagala signed the order appointing co-Lead Plaintiffs on October 4, 2023 and approved their selection of counsel, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., as co-lead counsel.

A copy of the order can be viewed here.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has appointed Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in the pending class action lawsuit, Solomon v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. et al., 1:23-cv-04279-MKB-JRC (E.D.N.Y. September 7, 2023). This appointment underscores our firm's extensive class action and securities litigation experience.

Review the official court order detailing our appointment Here.