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.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has appointed Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in the pending class action lawsuit, Scott Petersen V. Stem, Inc., 23-cv-02329-MMC (C.N.D.C. August 22, 2023). This appointment underscores our firm's substantial class action and securities litigation experience.

Review the official court order detailing our appointment here.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has appointed Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in the pending class action lawsuit, Thant et al. v. Veru, Inc., et al., 1:22-cv-23960-KMW (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2023). This significant appointment underscores our firm's substantial class action and securities litigation experience.

View the official court order detailing our appointment 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, Joshua Zhang V. Gaotu Techedu Inc. f/k/a GSX Techedu Inc., Xiangdong Chen, and Nan Shen, 1:22-cv-07966-PKC-CLP (E.D.N.Y. July 16, 2023). This noteworthy appointment highlights our firm's extensive class action and securities litigation experience.

Review the official court order detailing our appointment here.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado has appointed Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in the pending class action lawsuit, Miguel Jaramillo V. Dish Network Corporation, Et Al., 1:23-cv-00734-GPG-SKC (U.S.D.C. Colorado July 16, 2023). This notable appointment recognizes our firm's substantial class action and securities litigation experience noting that "the Court finds that Levi & Korinsky, LLP is qualified, experienced, and capable of vigorously conducting the proposed litigation".

View the official court order detailing our appointment here.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has appointed Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in the pending class action lawsuit, Howard M. Rensin, Trustee Of The Rensin Joint Trust v. United States Cellular Corporation, et al., 1:23-cv-02764-MMR (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2023). This significant development underscores our firm's substantial class action and securities litigation experience.

Final Approval of Settlement Granted in Stein V. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., 1:19-cv-98 (E.D. Tenn.)

On July 12, 2023, the Honorable Travis R. McDonough of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned Lewis Stein v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-98 (E.D. Tenn.). Lead plaintiff Deirdre Terry alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on false and misleading misstatements that the company made that allegedly concealed from shareholders facts relating to driver retention and the harm the U.S. Xpress was suffering from its inability to retain drivers. The Stipulation of Settlement and all relevant case documents can be found here.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has appointed Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in the ongoing class action lawsuit, Holland et al., v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., 23-cv-589 (N.D. Ohio June 22, 2023). This decision reflects the court's recognition of Levi & Korsinsky's extensive class action and securities litigation experience. Plaintiff Jennifer DaSilva has selected Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel, a firm which she contends "has substantial experience in the prosecution of shareholder and securities class actions."

A copy of the order can be viewed Here.

On December 20, 2019, a putative class and derivative lawsuit captioned Jacobs v. Meghji, C.A. No. 2019-1022-MTZ (the “Action”) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”), challenging a series of equity commitment transactions that Infrastructure & Energy Alternatives Inc. (“IEA”) had entered into in 2019. The Action named IEA’s Board of Directors, Oaktree Power Opportunities Fund III Delaware, L.P., and Ares Management Corp. as Defendants, with IEA as a Nominal Defendant.

 

On July 28, 2021, the parties in the Action reached a tentative settlement, which provided that IEA would enter into a series of recapitalization transactions to improve its capital structure. On July 28 and August 2, 2021, those contemplated recapitalization transactions were consummated (the “2021 Transactions”).

 

During the pendency of the Action, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware rendered its decision in the matter of Brookfield Asset Management, Inc., et al. v. Martin Rosson, et al., 261 A.3d 1251 (Del. 2021) (“Brookfield”), which the parties believe eliminated the viability of the class claims in the Action.

 

On July 25, 2022, IEA and MasTec Inc. (“MasTec”) announced that they entered into a definitive agreement under which MasTec would acquire all of the outstanding shares of IEA in a cash-and-stock transaction valued at $14.00 per IEA share (the “Merger”). On October 7, 2022, IEA and MasTec announced that they had completed the Merger, following approval by the IEA stockholders at a special meeting held on October 7, 2022.

 

As a result of the Merger, MasTec became IEA’s sole stockholder and, as a result, the parties to the Action agreed that (i) plaintiff no longer had standing to assert derivative claims on behalf of IEA, (ii) the tentative settlement reached on July 28, 2021 was void, and (iii) the Action should be dismissed as moot.

 

After the parties agreed that a mootness dismissal was required, the parties engaged former Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights of the Court of Chancery of Delaware as a mediator to address the question of the extent to which plaintiff’s counsel were entitled to attorneys’ fees and expenses for what they contended were corporate benefits that the 2021 Transactions provided to IEA. On March 8, 2023, the parties reached agreement upon IEA’s payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses of $5,000,000. The Court of Chancery has not been asked to review or approve, and will pass no judgment on, this payment.

 

In June 2023, the Court entered an order dismissing the Action with prejudice as to plaintiff, and without prejudice as to all other members of the putative class, and directed that this notice be distributed in the following forms: via a press release on a national wire service, a posting on plaintiff’s counsel’s website, and a posting on IEA’s website. After this notice has been distributed and the parties have attested to the fact to the Court, the dismissal will become final and the Court will no longer retain jurisdiction over the Action.

 

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi,

Esq. 55 Broadway, Suite #427 New York, NY 10006

Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171

www.zlk.com

The United States District Court for the Central District of California appointed Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in the pending class action lawsuit against Honda Motor Corporation. Judge George Wu noted, in pertinent part, that Levi & Korsinsky has “substantial class action and securities litigation experience.” The firm is grateful for the opportunity to serve in this capacity and looks forward to zealously litigating the case for the benefit of the aggrieved shareholders.

A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Update in the case: Sophia Olsson v. PLDT Inc. et al., 2:23-cv-00885-CJC-MAA (C.D. Cal. April 26, 2023):

The United States District Court for the Central District of California appointed Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in the pending class action lawsuit against PLDT Inc. Judge Cormac J. Carney noted, in pertinent part, that Levi & Korsinsky has “successfully served as counsel in many other securities class actions and its attorneys have extensive experience in handling large, complex litigation.” The firm is grateful for the opportunity to serve in this capacity and looks forward to zealously litigating the case for the benefit of the aggrieved shareholders.

A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Update in the case: Stein V. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. Et Al, 1:19-cv-98 (E.D. Tenn.):

A settlement has been reached and was preliminarily approved on March 28, 2023. The settlement provides for the payment of $13 million to eligible class members.  Lead plaintiff Deirdre Terry alleged violations of §§ 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on false and misleading misstatements that the company made that allegedly concealed from shareholders facts relating to driver retention and the harm the U.S. Xpress was suffering from its inability to retain drivers.

The hearing on the Motion for Final Approval is scheduled for July 10, 2023.

On March 17, 2023, Levi & Korsinsky filed an action against the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Silicon Valley Bank to recover investor losses in wake of bank failure and bankruptcy. A copy of the complaint can be found here, and shareholders interested in joining the action are encouraged to contact L&K using this link.

On February 14, 2023, Judge Otis D. Wright II, United States District Judge in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, signed an order consolidating two class actions filed on behalf of shareholders of FIGS, Inc. who were harmed by alleged securities fraud.  The consolidated case is captioned Sean Ryan v. FIGS, Inc. et al., 2:22-cv-07939-ODW.

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

A settlement has been reached in Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

 

The settlement, once approved, will provide for the payment of $14 million to eligible class members. Lead Plaintiffs Ferraro Family Foundation, Inc. and James L. Ferraro alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on false and misleading misstatements that the company made that allegedly concealed from shareholders its off-label marketing of the drug Korlym.

 

Lead Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement was filed on April 11, 2023 and is currently pending preliminary approval in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Corcept Therapeutics' announcement of the settlement can be viewed here.

On February 6, 2023, the parties reach a preliminary agreement to settle two related actions, In re Nutanix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01651-WHO (the “Stock Case”) and John P. Norton, on Behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002 v. Nutanix, Inc., et. al., Case No. 3:19-cv-04080-WHO (the “Options Case”) providing for the payment of $71 million to eligible class members. Lead Plaintiff of the Stock Case, California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust, and Lead Plaintiff of the Options Case, John P. Norton, alleged violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on false and misleading misstatements that the company made that allegedly concealed from shareholders its rapidly declining sales pipeline, revenue, and billings.

On February 3, 2023, a Lead Plaintiff was appointed in the class action lawsuit captioned Schoen v. Eiger Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 13:22-cv-6985-RS. Chief United States District Judge in the Northern District of California, Richard Seeborg, signed the order that also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as 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 Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: EIGR).

Jamia Fernandes v. Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., 1:22-cv-08805-GHW-SLC  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 Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc (NASDAQ: CNTA) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On December 12, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave signed an order appointing 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.

On December 8, 2022, a Lead Plaintiff was appointed in the class action lawsuit captioned Gilbert v. Azure Power Global Limited, et al., 1:22-cv-07432-GHW. The Honorable Gregory H. Woods, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, signed the order that also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

The L&K team looks forward to representing class members who lost money on their investments in Azure Power Global Limited (NYSE: AZRE).

Michalski v. Weber Inc., et al., 1:21-cv-03966-EEB is a lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The action was filed on behalf of investors in Weber Inc. (NYSE: WEBR) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On November 29, 2022, United States District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo signed an order appointing Mateusz Grudziaz as Lead Plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Lead Counsel for the class. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Edge v. Tupperware Brands Corporation, et al., 6:22-cv-1518 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 Tupperware Brands Corporation (NYSE: TUP) who allegedly suffered losses due to securities fraud by the company.

On September 16, 2022, United States District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. signed an order appointing 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.

On August 30, 2022, Judge William F. Kuntz II, United States District Judge in the Eastern District of New York, signed an order consolidating two class actions filed on behalf of shareholders of Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX).  The consolidated case is captioned In re Nano-X Imaging Ltd. Securities Litigation, 1:20-cv-04355.  

In addition to consolidating the cases, Judge Kuntz appointed Edward Ko and Derson O. Jolteus as Lead Plaintiffs and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Lead Counsel in the consolidated action. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

On August 8, 2022, a Lead Plaintiff was appointed in the class action lawsuit captioned Rose v. Butterfly Network, Inc., et al., 2:22-cv-00854. The Honorable Evelyn Padin, United States District Judge in the District of New Jersey, signed the order that also approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

The L&K Team looks forward to representing class members who lost money investing in Butterfly Network, Inc. (NYSE: BFLY).

United States District Judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Ronnie Abrams, has appointed two Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approved their selection of counsel in a securities fraud class action lawsuit filed on behalf of shareholders of Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG).  The case is captioned Winter v. Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc., et al., 1:22-cv-03088, and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. were appointed as Co-Lead Counsel on August 4, 2022. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

In April of 2022, a class action lawsuit captioned Poirer v. Bakkt Holdings, Inc., 1:22-cv-02283 was commenced against Bakkt Holdings, Inc. f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings alleging that the Company committed securities fraud and thereby harmed its investors. On June 21, 2022, six different investors moved the court seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff in the action.

After considering the lead plaintiff motions, The Honorable Peggy Kuo, United States Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, signed an order appointing three Co-Lead Plaintiffs on August 3, 2022.

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs, Rachna Mehrotra, Tse Winston Wing Kuen, and James Liner selected Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz LLP as their counsel, and Judge Kuo appointed the two firms Co-Lead Counsel in the action. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

On July 15, 2022, The Honorable James R. Cho, United States Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, signed an order consolidating two class actions filed on behalf of shareholders of Meta Materials Inc. (NASDAQ: MMAT). The consolidated case is captioned In re Meta Materials Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:21-cv-07203.  

In addition to consolidating the cases, Judge Cho appointed a group of three individuals (the “Meta Materials Investor Group”) as Lead Plaintiff in the action. Judge Cho also approved the Meta Materials Investor Group’s choice of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as counsel and appointed the firm Lead Counsel in the action. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

On June 6, 2022, Judge Victor Marrero, 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 Grab Holdings Limited.  The consolidated case is captioned In re Grab Holdings Limited Securities Litigation, 1:22-cv-02189-VM.  

In addition to consolidating the cases, Judge Marrero appointed SLG Cloudbank Holdings, LLC and Si Fan and Amit Batra as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz LLP as Co-Lead Counsel. A copy of the order can be viewed here.

Levi & Korsinsky makes settlement announcement to those who purchased or otherwise acquired CLD Tokens directly from Cloud With Me, Ltd. between July 25, 2017 and June 19, 2018 while located in the United States:

On April 21, 2022, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ordered that Levi & Korsinsky, in the case Balestra v. Cloud With Me, Ltd., et al., publish notice of a proposed settlement. The Notice is to all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired CLD Tokens between July 25, 2017 and June 19, 2018, inclusive, while located within the United States, and were damaged thereby. To view the Summary Notice, click here.

Levi & Korsinsky Makes Settlement Announcement To Those Who Acquired ATB Tokens Between June 12, 2017 and September 15, 2017:

On March 29, 2022, the Court ordered that Levi & Korsinsky, in the case Balestra, et al. v. ATBCOIN LLC, et al., publish notice of a proposed settlement. The Notice is to all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ATB Tokens between June 12, 2017 and September 15, 2017, inclusive, while located within the United States, and were damaged thereby. To view the Summary Notice, click here.

On September 10, 2021, the Court ordered that the case Jacob Zowie Thomas Rensel, et al v. Centra Tech, Inc., et al, Case No. 17-cv-24500-RNS/Becerra be certified as a class action. The court also appointed Jacob Zowie Thomas Rensel, Wang Yun He, Chi Hao Poon, King Fung Poon, Jae J. Lee, and Mateusz Ganczarek as Class Representatives and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Taylor-Copeland Law as Class Counsel. The Court subsequently approved that a Summary Notice be sent to all members of the Class. View the notice here.

"We are honored to have the firm’s work again recognized by Lawdragon."  Stated Ed Korsinsky when he received the news.

 

Levi & Korsinsky LLP is one of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms with over 180 years of combined partner experience litigating complex securities actions. Our 40+ lawyers, backed by a 90+ person support staff, have successfully litigated high-stakes, bet-the-company cases, in both federal and state courts throughout the country. At Levi & Korsinsky we combine securities expertise with innovative approaches to litigation and an enduring commitment to recover maximum compensation for our clients. Our attorneys are supported by a team of experienced professionals including financial experts, as well as a cutting-edge, proprietary e-discovery system designed to tackle the discovery needs of any given litigation.

NEW YORK, July 23, 2021 – Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces the proposed settlement of the derivative action captioned In re Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-04293-FB-LB in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.   If you were a stockholder of Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: VNDA) as of July 19, 2021 and continue to own such shares, please click HERE to read the Notice to Current Vanda Stockholders, which contains important information regarding your rights.   Please reach out to counsel for Plaintiffs with any questions or concerns at:  

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Gregory M. Nespole

Daniel Tepper

LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP

55 Broadway, 10^th Floor

New York NY 10006

Phone: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

   

W. Scott Holleman

Garam Choe

BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.

810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620

New York, NY 10019

Fax: (212) 486-0462