Recent Security Class Actions

According to the Complaint, Atkore Inc. purports to be a leading manufacturer of electrical, safety, and infrastructure products. Among other products, the Company manufactures polyvinyl chloride ("PVC") water pipes and electrical conduit pipes (together, "PVC Pipes"). This lawsuit was filed against Atkore and three of its Officers.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Atkore engaged in an anticompetitive price-fixing scheme that artificially inflated the price of PVC Pipes; (2) in turn, Atkore reaped significant, unsustainable financial benefits from its anticompetitive conduct; (3) as Atkore's price-fixing scheme was exposed, the Company and its price fixing co-conspirators were no longer able to artificially inflate the price of PVC Pipes, resulting in a substantial decrease in the price of PVC Pipes; (4) Atkore's business and operations were negatively impacted; and (5) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, GSK plc is a global pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and markets vaccines and medicines worldwide. This lawsuit was filed against GSK and three of its Officers.In the 1980s, Glaxo, a predecessor company to GSK, launched a treatment for heartburn and acid reflux: ranitidine, under the brand name Zantac. Over the next four decades, Zantac was used by millions of patients and generated billions of dollars for GSK. In 2019, independent laboratory Valisure found N-nitrosodimethylamine (“NDMA”), a cancer-causing poison, in “every batch of every [Zantac] medication” that it tested. Valisure reported these results to the FDA and to the public. In September and October 2019, GSK suspended its distribution of Zantac and initiated a voluntary recall.The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants represented to investors that GSK removed Zantac from the market “[b]ased on information available at the time and correspondence with regulators,” and that GSK was “continuing with investigations into the potential source of NDMA.” The Complaint further alleges that Defendants also assured investors that “GSK, the FDA, and the EMA [European Medicines Agency] have all independently concluded that there is no evidence of a causal association between ranitidine therapy and the development of cancer in patients,” findings that were “consistent with other ranitidine data published prior to 2019.” In addition, the Complaint alleges Defendants claimed that they could not “quantify or reliably estimate the liability” GSK could face from Zantac-related legal proceedings. Finally, the Complaint alleges that these representations were materially false or misleading and caused GSK ADRs to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. is a provider of power management components used in electronic systems. This class action was filed against Monolithic and two of its Officers.The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Monolithic’s voltage regulator modules and power management integrated circuits were suffering from significant performance and quality control issues; (ii) these defects had, in turn, negatively impacted the performance of certain products offered by Nvidia in which such products were used; (iii) Monolithic had failed to adequately address and resolve known issues affecting the performance of the power management solutions Monolithic supplied to Nvidia; (iv) Monolithic’s relationship with Nvidia – the Company's most important customer – had been irreparably damaged due to the significant performance and quality control problems affecting the products it supplied to Nvidia and Monolithic’s failure to adequately address such issues; and (v) as a result of the above, Monolithic was acutely exposed to material undisclosed risks of significant business, financial, and reputational harm.

According to the Complaint, Target Corporation sells itself as the favorite retailer of middle-class American families. This class action was filed against Target and thirteen of its Directors.In May 2023, Target faced immense customer backlash to its ambitious LGBT- “Pride Month” marketing and sales campaign, one of its featured ESG/DEI initiatives. The 2023 LGBT-Pride Campaign prompted a strong adverse reaction from a large portion of Target’s customer base, in particular because it featured marketing and products directed to children, embroiling Target in a culture war.The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Target failed to warn investors of risks associated with its mandates regarding its ESG/DEI initiatives and that this deceit, through misleading statements in the Company’s public filings, caused Target’s investors to purchase Target stock at artificially inflated prices and to unknowingly support Target’s Board and management in their misuse of investor funds to serve political and social goals.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 17, 2024, pursuant to which Avangrid, Inc. would be acquired by Iberdrola, S.A., Avangrid’s controlling stockholder. The lawsuit was filed against Avangrid and four of its Directors.On August 20, 2024 and September 6, 2024, Defendants filed proxy statements with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statements omitted material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, rendering the Proxy Statements false and misleading. On September 26, 2024, Avangrid held its shareholder vote in connection with the buyout and a majority of Avangrid’s stockholders voted in favor of the buyout, which closed on December 23, 2024.Plaintiff seeks to recover damages that he and other similarly situated former Avangrid stockholders suffered as a result of Defendants’ alleged violations of the Exchange Act.

n/a

According to the Complaint, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation is an international company that researches, develops, provides products and technologies for heart valve repair and replacement therapies, as well as critical care monitoring solutions. This lawsuit was filed against the Company and three of its Officers.

Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Edwards' expected revenue for the fiscal year 2024, particularly as it related to the growth of the Company's core product, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ("TAVR"). Defendants' statements included, among other things, strong commitment to the TAVR platform, confidence in the Company's ability to capitalize on a subset of untreated patients through scaling of its various patient activation activities, and continued claims of significant demand in allegedly lower-penetrated markets.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Edwards' TAVR platform; notably, that the Company's claims and confidence relied far too heavily on their perceived ability to engage the claimed low-treatment rate population of patients and an overestimation of the desire for hospitals and other care facilities to continue to utilize and otherwise commit resources to the TAVR procedures over newer, innovative treatment alternatives.

On July 24, 2024, Edwards unveiled below-expectation financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2024 and, in particular, slashed its revenue guidance for the TAVR platform for the full fiscal year 2024. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Edwards' revelations and the price of Edwards' common stock declined dramatically.

Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated investors, to recover losses sustained in connection with Defendants' alleged fraud.

According to the Complaint, Domino's Pizza, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a global pizza company in three segments: U.S. Stores, International Franchise, and Supply Chain. The Company's largest "master franchisee" is Domino's Pizza Enterprises ("DPE") which, as of December 31, 2023, operated 3,840 stores in 12 international markets, accounting for approximately 28% of the Company's international store count and 19% of its global store count. This lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its Officers.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) DPE, the Company's largest master franchisee, was experiencing significant challenges with respect to both new store openings and closures of existing stores; (ii) as a result, Domino's was unlikely to meet its own previously issued long-term guidance for annual global net store growth; (iii) accordingly, Domino's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, PDD Holdings Inc. (f/k/a Pinduoduo Inc.) purports to be "a multinational commerce group that owns and operates a portfolio of businesses." The Company changed its name to PDD Holdings Inc. in February 2023.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) PDD Holdings' applications contained malware, which was designed to obtain user data without the user's consent, including reading private text messages; (2) PDD Holdings has no meaningful system to prevent goods made by forced labor from being sold on its platform, and has openly sold banned products on its Temu platform; (3) the foregoing subjected PDD Holdings to a heightened risk of legal and political scrutiny; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. is a global cybersecurity company that provides software that helps prevent data breaches. CrowdStrike's customers are major corporations across several industries including airlines, banks, hospitals, and telecommunications providers as well as government entities.

Beginning on July 19, 2024, investors learned about critical issues with CrowdStrike's technology when a single update pushed by CrowdStrike caused outages for millions of users of Microsoft Windows devices worldwide, including financial institutions, government entities, and corporations (the "CrowdStrike Outage"). Further, CrowdStrike disclosed that the outages had left users vulnerable to potential hacking threats.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the efficacy of the Falcon platform while assuring investors that CrowdStrike's technology was "validated, tested, and certified." The Complaint further alleges that these statements were false and misleading because Defendants had failed to disclose that: (1) CrowdStrike had instituted deficient controls in its procedure for updating Falcon and was not properly testing updates to Falcon before rolling them out to customers; (2) this inadequate software testing created a substantial risk that an update to Falcon could cause major outages for a significant number of the Company's customers; and (3) such outages could pose, and in fact ultimately created, substantial reputational harm and legal risk to CrowdStrike.