Eller v. Vistagen Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 3:26-cv-00427-RS is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Vistagen Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VTGN) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On April 16, 2026, Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg appointed Eric Weinberger as Lead Plaintiff and approved Weinberger 's selection Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the document can be viewed here.

On March 26, 2026, two Co-Lead Plaintiffs were appointed in the class action lawsuit captioned Diamond v. Firefly Aerospace Inc., et al., 1:25-cv-01812-DAE. Senior United States District Judge in the Western District of Texas, David Alan Ezra, signed the order that also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd 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 Firefly Aerospace Inc. (FLY). 

On March 9, 2026, two Co-Lead Plaintiffs were appointed in the class action lawsuit captioned Shailesh Patel v. Napco Security Technologies, Inc., et al., 2:25-cv-02308-LDH-LGD. United States District Judge in the Eastern District of New York, LaShann DeArcy Hall, signed the order that also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz 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 Napco Security Technologies, Inc. (NSSC). 

Jeremy Stout v. Skye Bioscience, Inc., et al., 3:25-cv-03177-WQH-DEB is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Skye Bioscience, Inc. (NASDAQ: SKYE) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On March 9, 2026, the Honorable William Q. Hayes appointed Randall Scott Therrell as Lead Plaintiff and appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the document can be viewed here.

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO:​ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF BIONESS, INC. COMMON STOCK AS OF MARCH 30, 2021, TOGETHER WITH THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS, TRANSFEREES, AND SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST

PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”), that the above-captioned stockholder class action (the “Action”) is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs Teuza – A Fairchild Technology Venture Ltd., Nachos, Inc., and Adnir Holdings Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Class have reached a proposed settlement with Michael Dreyer, Anoosheh Bostani, Alfred E. Mann Trust, and Mann Group, LLC (the “Mann Defendants”) and Mark Lindon (together with the Mann Defendants, the “Defendants”)for $8,900,000 in cash (the “Settlement”). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release (the “Stipulation”) on January 29, 2026, a copy of which is available at www.BionessStockholderSettlement.com. If approved by the Court the Settlement will resolve all claims in this Action.

A hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) will be held on May 8, 2026, 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Bonnie W. David at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Sussex County, 34 The Circle, Georgetown, Delaware 19947 (or at such a date and time as the Court may direct without further notice), to:  (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(i), and 23(b)(ii), (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel have adequately represented the interests of the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; (iiiiv) determine whether an order and judgment should be entered approving the Settlement and dismissing the Action with prejudice, releasing, barring, and enjoining prosecution of Plaintiffs’ Released Plaintiffs’ Claims, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation; (iv) hear and determine any objections to the Settlement; (vi) hear and determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (vii) hear and determine any Fee and Expense Application and Service Award Request(s), and (viii) hear other such matters as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website www.BionessStockholderSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at info@BionessStockholderSettlement.com or 1-877-269-4873. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.BionessStockholderSettlement.com.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Class members in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as may be approved by the Court.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the Settlement (including service awards to Plaintiffs), or any other matters to be addressed at the Settlement Hearing must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than April 24, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiffs' Counsel.

Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator:

Bioness Stockholder Settlement
c/o Epiq Systems, Inc.
P.O.  Box 5450
Portland, OR 97228-5450

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Dated: March 24, 2026

5004686294.1

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, ANDRIGHT TO APPEAR

TO:  All Persons who held shares of Spartan Acquisition Corp. II (“Spartan”) Class A common stock asof 5:00 PM EDT on July 6, 2021 (the “Redemption Deadline”), either of record or beneficially, and who did not redeem all of their shares, including their successors in interest who obtained their shares by operation of law, but excluding the Excluded Persons (as defined in the Stipulation and the Notice) (the “Class”).1

PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”), that the above-captioned stockholder class action (the “Action”) is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiffs Timothy McCants, Laurenṭiu Ovidiu Cernahoschi, and Thomas Joseph (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the Class; and (ii) defendants Geoffrey Strong, Olivia Wassenaar, Wilson Handler, Christine Hommes, Joseph Romeo, Jan Wilson, John Stice, Spartan Acquisition Sponsor II LLC, Apollo Global Management, Inc., AP Spartan Energy Holdings II, L.P. (collectively the “Spartan Defendants”), and Barry Edinburg(collectively with the Spartan Defendants, “Defendants,” and Defendants together with Plaintiff, the“Parties,” and each a “Party”), have reached a proposed cash settlement for $8,000,000 in total (the “Settlement Amount”). The Settlement, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action against the Defendants. A copy of the Settlement is available at www.SpartanDeSPACStockholderSettlement.com.

A hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) will be held on May 1, 2026 at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable

Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Vice Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard

L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, or remotely by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and whether Plaintiffs should be finally appointed as Class representatives for the Class and Plaintiffs’ Counsel should be finally appointed as Class counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and inthe best interests of the Class; (iv) determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be granted; (v) determine whether the Order and FinalJudgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation

1 Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release, dated December 8, 2025 (the “Stipulation” or “Settlement”). Copies of the Stipulation and the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the “Notice”) are available at the Settlement website: www.SpartanDeSPACStockholderSettlement.com.

of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii) determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award should be paid to Plaintiffs’ Counsel out of theSettlement Fund; (viii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s application for a Fee and Expense Award; and (ix) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.SpartanDeSPACStockholderSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and theSettlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at Spartan Stockholder Settlement, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., PO Box 2258, Portland, OR 97208-2258. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.SpartanDeSPACStockholderSettlement.com.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the terms of the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by theCourt. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receivea pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (a) the Net Settlement Fund; and(b) a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible Class Member, and the denominator of which is a number representing the total number of Eligible Shares. As explainedin further detail in the Notice at Paragraphs 41-47, Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement.

Any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s application for the Fee and Expense Award must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel such that they are received no later than April 17, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary Notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator:

Spartan StockholderSettlement c/o Epiq Systems, Inc.

PO Box 2258

Portland, OR 97208-2258

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiffs’ Counsel:

Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq. Ashby & Geddes, P.A.

500 Delaware Avenue, 8thFloor Wilmington, DE 19899 [email protected]

BY ORDER OF THE COURTOF CHANCERY OF THESTATE OF DELAWARE:

Dated: February 27, 2026

Eric Barta v. Novo Nordisk A/S, et al., 3:25-cv-14045-ZNQ-JBD is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Novo Nordisk A/S (NYSE: NVO) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On February 17, 2026, Federal Magistrate Judge J. Brendan Day appointed Ahmed Hashim as Lead Plaintiff and appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the document can be viewed here.

Keller v. Tronox Holdings PLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-CV-1441, is a putative federal securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Tronox Holdings PLC (NASDAQ: TROX) who allege they suffered losses as a result of violations of the federal securities laws.

On January 22, 2026, United States District Judge Kari A. Dooley appointed Jason D. Smith as Lead Plaintiff and approved his selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the document can be viewed here.

On December 9, 2025, two Co-Lead Plaintiffs were appointed in the class action lawsuit captioned Morand v. Tesla, Inc., et al., 1:25-cv-01213-RP. United States District Judge in the Western District of Texas, Robert Pitman, signed the order that also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz 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 Tesla, Inc. (TSLA). 

Omar Abdul-Hameed v. Snap Inc. et al, 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO 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 Snap Inc. (NYSE: SNAP) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On December 5, 2025, District Judge R. Gary Klausner appointed Omar Abdul-Hameed as Lead Plaintiff and approved Abdul-Hameed 's selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the document can be viewed here.

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

On November 19, 2025, two Co-Lead Plaintiffs were appointed in the class action lawsuit Bhagavan v. Nutex Health Inc., et al., 4:25-cv-03999. United States District Judge in the Southern District of Texas, Charles Eskridge, signed the order that also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz 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 Nutex Health Inc. (NUTX). 

Kalera v. ModivCare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00306-GPG-KAS is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The action was filed on behalf of investors in ModivCare, Inc. (NASDAQ: MODV) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company. 

On October 27, 2025, District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher appointed Christopher Skrypski as Lead Plaintiff and approved Gallagher’s selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel.

A copy of the document can be viewed here.

On October 14, 2025, two Co-Lead Plaintiffs were appointed in the class action lawsuit Leong v. Capricor Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 3:25-cv-01815-GPC-AHG. United States District Judge in the Southern District of California, Gonzalo P. Curiel, signed the order that also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz 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 Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. (CAPR). 

Levi & Korsinsky recently prevailed in a securities fraud appeal at the Second Circuit of Appeals in the matter of Sherman v. Abengoa, S.A. (2d Cir. 2025).

In Abengoa, investors who purchased Abengoa’s American Depository Shares alleged that the Spanish energy and construction company falsified its financial statements to conceal a severe liquidity crisis that led to its 2016 bankruptcy. Plaintiffs alleged that Abengoa’s 2013 SEC registration statement misrepresented that it used the “percentage-of-completion” accounting method accurately, when in fact executives inflated profits, fabricated costs, and shifted expenses between projects to overstate revenue and hide losses. The district court dismissed the claims as untimely and inadequately pleaded, but the Second Circuit reversed in part, holding that the Securities Act claims were timely and plausibly alleged based on detailed insider accounts and corroborating Spanish criminal proceedings. The appellate court reinstated the Securities Act and Exchange Act claims against Abengoa, as well as Securities Act claims against an Abengoa executive and its underwriters.

This decision is significant for a number of reasons, one of which is that the Second Circuit panel held that Plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their claims that Abengoa “orchestrated a fraudulent scheme”; Abengoa was, at the time a multinational corporation and one of Spain’s largest companies, and the case involved a large investigation conducted by Levi & Korsinsky and co-counsel uncovering and piecing together legal proceedings and reports in diverse jurisdictions, the findings of which the Second Circuit held could be relied upon as “detailed, independently corroborated, and the product of an independent investigation.” Perhaps more importantly, the decision clarifies Second Circuit precedent on materiality and pleading standards in securities fraud cases, affirming that investors may rely on detailed factual allegations drawn from credible external investigations and foreign proceedings. The ruling strengthens investor protections by reaffirming that multinational corporations are accountable for false or misleading disclosures in U.S. markets, regardless of where their misconduct originates. It represents a strong statement of law ensuring that global companies engaging in deceptive accounting and reporting practices can be held responsible under U.S. securities laws. Levi & Korsinsky remains committed to fighting for investors harmed by fraud, misrepresentation, and corporate misconduct, wherever that conduct occurs.

Savant v. iRobot Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05563 (S.D.N.Y.) is a securities fraud class action pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint, filed in July 2025, alleges that iRobot Corporation and certain of its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects. According to the allegations, iRobot overstated the extent to which its operational restructuring plan would stabilize the company following the termination of its planned acquisition by Amazon.com, Inc., leading to substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern, inflating its stock price and causing losses to investors who purchased securities during the relevant period.

On October 3, 2025, the Honorable Gary Stein issued an Order appointing Rita Lazaro, Vinayak Savant, and Sergei Daniel as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the case. The Court also approved the Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ selection of Pomerantz LLP and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel.

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

Capricor said its new drug was on track for FDA approval — but the data didn’t deliver.
After months of hyping trial results and regulatory progress, Capricor’s application got rejected. The stock dropped 33%. Now, investors are suing.

Starting in late 2024, Capricor promoted its lead drug, deramiocel, as a breakthrough treatment for DMD-related cardiomyopathy. The company told investors its clinical trial results were strong — and that its application for FDA approval was on track. They even said the drug could get priority review.

But the lawsuit says Capricor left out critical facts. Internally, execs knew the study data didn’t meet the mark. They also knew about major manufacturing issues. But those execs kept insisting drug was likely to be approved.

In July 2025, the truth came out. The FDA formally rejected the drug, citing both weak evidence and production problems. Investors bailed — and the stock lost a third of its value in one day.

Now, more shareholders are joining the lawsuit.

Neogen told investors the 3M merger was cooking — but in reality everything was rotten.  For over a year, execs claimed the deal was “on track.” Then came a $461 million write-down, slashed guidance, and an 80% stock collapse when the merger synergies soured.  Now, investors are suing.

It started in early 2023. Neogen told investors the 3M Food Safety merger was going just fine. If there were hiccups, they’d fix them. And quarter after quarter, they said things were moving alone.

But the lawsuit says that was a recipe for disaster. Integration problems were stacking up, revenue was slipping, and execs allegedly knew a giant goodwill impairment was coming. They just didn’t say so.

Then, the whole thing crumbled. In January 2025, Neogen dropped the $461 million bombshell, admitted to internal control issues, and lowered its outlook. In April, they cut guidance again and announced the CEO was leaving. By June, margins tanked — again.

The stock didn’t just dip. It sank — 5% in January, 28% in April, 17% in June. Total damage? Nearly 80% gone.

Now, more shareholders are joining the lawsuit.

Lin v. Civitas Resources, Inc. et al., Case No. 25-cv-03791, is a securities fraud case pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint, filed in May 2025, alleges that Civitas Resources, Inc. and certain of its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements regarding the company’s oil production capabilities and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint claims that Civitas failed to disclose significant production declines in 2025 due to factors including natural declines in the DJ Basin, low TIL counts, and the need for substantial debt to acquire additional acreage, as well as workforce reductions. These misstatements allegedly inflated Civitas’s stock price, causing losses to investors who purchased securities between February 27, 2024, and February 24, 2025.

On August 18, 2025, the Court issued an Order appointing Shawn Maroney as Lead Plaintiff in the case. The Court also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel.

A copy of the Court’s Order can be found here.

Gonzalez v. Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., et al., case no. 1:25-cv-10353-DJC, is a securities fraud lawsuit currently pending before Judge Denise J. Casper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges that Intellia misled investors about the viability of its gene-editing therapy, NTLA-3001, and that when the truth came out, the company’s stock price fell sharply, resulting in significant investor losses.

On May 26, 2025, Judge Casper appointed John D. Albaugh, James Scott Ewert, Yiu Chung Lee, and Ronnie Evans as co-lead plaintiffs. In the same order, the Court appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz LLP as co-lead counsel.

A copy of the order can be found here.

Meza v. Constellation Brands, Inc., et al is a securities fraud case currently pending before Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.  The case alleges Constellation Brands and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements, in violation of federal securities laws.  These allegedly false and misleading statements concerned Constellation's growth and outlook projections for the alcoholic beverages, despite Constellation's knowledge that the market was in decline.  

On May 28, 2025, Judge Wolford appointed Macaria Meza as lead plaintiff in this case.  In the same Order, Judge Wolford appointed Levi & Korsinsky LLP as lead counsel.  In the Order, Judge Wolford noted Levi & Korsinsky "has extensive experience as lead counsel in securities class actions."  

The case number is 6:25-cv-06107-EAW.  A copy of the court's order can be found here.  

Dabestani v. Geron Corp., et al. and Potvin v. Geron Corp., et al are securities fraud cases pending before Hon. Charles R. Breyer in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.  The case alleges Geron and certain of its executives violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements about the revenue outlook and anticipated growth for Geron's pharmaceutical product, Rytelo.  

On May 29, 2025, Judge Breyer issued an order consolidating the two cases and appointing Reza Dabestani and Isaac Potvin as co-lead plaintiffs.  Judge Breyer also appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel in the case.

The consolidated case is captioned In Re Geron Corp. Securities Lit., case no. 3:25-cv-02507-CRB.  A copy of the order can be found here.

A settlement has been reached and was preliminarily approved on April 30, 2025. The settlement provides for the payment of $23 million to eligible class members. Lead plaintiff Serap Lokman 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 Azure's claimed compliance with anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws, winning project bids, commissioning projects, and certain related operating metrics, when certain of these bids were won by, and fraught with, corruption and other infirmities. 

The hearing on the Motion for Final Approval is scheduled for September 5, 2025.

A settlement has been reached and was preliminarily approved on May 8, 2025. The settlement provides for the payment of $7.75 million to eligible class members. Lead plaintiff Howard M. Rensin, Trustee of the Rensin Joint Trust, 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 United States Cellular Corp.'s ("USM's") expense discipline with respect to promotions, the timeline for benefits from USM's promotions, USM's subscriber churn, and declines in in-store traffic. 

The hearing on the Motion for Final Approval is scheduled for September 3, 2025.

On May 15, 2025, the Honorable Judge Jennifer L. Rochon, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the settlement in the Grab matter. 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 Final Approval Order and other settlement documents may be found here. 

On May 2, 2025, Eduard Korsinsky, a founding partner at Levi & Korsinsky, published an analysis in Law360 advocating for justice-centered reforms in mass arbitration. In the article, Korsinsky critiqued proposed changes that would impose barriers on consumer claims, arguing that such measures risk entrenching corporate impunity rather than addressing inefficiencies. Drawing from recent high-profile cases, he outlined how corporations have used restrictive arbitration procedures to evade accountability and highlighted the need for reforms that preserve access to justice. Korsinsky proposed balanced alternatives, including transparent fee structures, AI-driven claim verification, and independent oversight, emphasizing that arbitration must function as a fair dispute resolution process—not a tool for avoidance.

Click the link below for the full article.

Law360 - Mass Arbitration Reform Must Focus On Justice

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.