n/a
Recent Security Class Actions
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.
According to the Complaint, SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation initially operated as a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”) under the name LMF Acquisition Opportunities, Inc. On April 22, 2022, the Company, then still operating as a SPAC, and SeaStar Medical, Inc. ("Legacy SeaStar"), a medical technology company developing extracorporeal therapies to reduce the consequences of excessive inflammation on vital organs, jointly announced that they had entered into a merger agreement. On October 28, 2022, the Company and Legacy SeaStar consummated the Merger pursuant to the Merger Agreement. As a result of the Merger, Legacy SeaStar's business, operations, and management became the Company’s business, operations, and management, and the Company renamed itself “SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation.”The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SeaStar and/or Legacy SeaStar had deficient compliance controls and procedures related to the HDE Application to the FDA for use of Selective Cytopheretic Device ("SCD"); (ii) accordingly, there were deficiencies with the HDE Application, the FDA was unlikely to approve the HDE Application in its present form, and the SCD’s regulatory prospects were overstated; (iii) the Company had downplayed the true scope and severity of deficiencies in its financial controls and procedures, while overstating Defendants’ efforts to remediate the same; (iv) accordingly, SeaStar had failed to properly account for the classification of certain outstanding warrants and the Prepaid Forward Agreement; (v) as a result, SeaStar was likely to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements; (vi) accordingly, SeaStar’s post-Merger business and financial prospects were overstated; and (vii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
According to the Complaint, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in the development of immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. The Company’s business model relies primarily on the success of its “Boltbody” pipeline of immuno-oncology product candidates. 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) BDC-1001 was less effective than the Company had represented to investors and was in fact unlikely to meet its pre-defined success criteria; (ii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the clinical and/or commercial prospects of Bolt’s product pipeline, on which the Company primarily relies to sustain its business model; (iii) all of the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened risk of disruptive leadership transitions and substantial workforce reduction; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
According to the Complaint, Seritage commenced operations in 2015 as a real estate investment trust which primarily held properties acquired from Sears Holdings Corporation. After formation, the Company was principally engaged in the ownership, development and leasing of retail and mixed-use properties throughout the United States.The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective internal controls regarding the identification and review of impairment indicators for investments in real estate; (2) that, as a result, the Company had overstated the value and projected gross proceeds of certain real estate assets; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
According to the Complaint, Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd. is a global manufacturer and marketer of solar technology. Maxeon went public in August 2020 through a strategic spin off from SunPower Corp. SunPower was Maxeon’s largest customer, representing 26.7% of the Company’s total revenue for fiscal year 2022. Maxeon and SunPower maintained a supply agreement under which, among other things, SunPower was obligated to purchase certain minimum product volumes; and Maxeon was prohibited from selling certain modules to customers other than SunPower and could not circumvent that exclusivity provision via SunPower dealers.In mid-2023, Maxeon and SunPower engaged in a dispute wherein Maxeon alleged SunPower was withholding approximately $29 million in past due invoices and SunPower alleged that Maxeon was in breach of the Master Supply Agreement’s non-circumvention clause. As a result, Maxeon ceased shipments to SunPower in July 2023. By November 2023, the two companies settled their dispute but terminated the Master Supply Agreement. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Maxeon relied on the exclusive sales of certain products to SunPower; (2) that, following the termination of the Master Supply Agreement, the Company was unable to “aggressively ramp sales”; (3) that, as a result, revenue substantially declined; (4) that, as a result, the Company suffered a “serious cash flow” crisis; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
According to the Complaint, Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese car company. 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) Toyota understated its malfeasance relating to certification of its cars and issues relating to overall legal compliance; and (2) 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.
