Recent Security Class Actions

According to the Complaint, UnitedHealth Group Inc. is a health care and well-being company comprised of two distinct and complementary businesses: Optum and UnitedHealthcare. UnitedHealthcare provides health insurance to individuals, employers, and small businesses and is the largest insurance provider in the United States. Optum provides healthcare-related services, including software solutions, payment services, and data analytics.

On January 6, 2021, UnitedHealth announced an agreement to acquire Change Healthcare and integrate it into its Optum business. Change is a healthcare technology company that provides data solutions aimed at improving clinical decision making and simplifying payment processes across the healthcare system.

On February 27, 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that the DOJ had re-opened an antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth, investigating the relationships between the Company's various segments, including Optum.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, UnitedHealth repeatedly assured investors that it had taken steps to avoid anti-competitive behavior, including by setting up "robust firewall processes" to prevent customer sensitive information ("CSI") from being shared between UnitedHealthcare and Optum after the merger. The Complaint further alleges that UnitedHealth's assurances articially inflated the price of UnitedHealth's common stock during the Class Period. After the publication of the article in the Wall Street Journal, UnitedHealth's stock price fell precipitously.

According to the Complaint, Sprout Social, Inc. is a software company which develops and operates a web-based social media management platform. The Company's software offers a centralized platform for customers to manage social media outreach, including integrated tools for social engagement, publishing, reporting, and analytics. The Company generates revenue primarily from subscriptions to this social media management platform under a software-as-a-service model.

On August 3, 2023, the Company announced it had acquired Tagger Media, Inc., a leading influencer marketing and social intelligence platform used by enterprise brands and agencies. On September 27, 2023, the Company announced during its Investor Day that it would be "[a]ccelerating our outbound marketing & sales motion in enterprise" and focusing on mid-market and enterprise leadership.

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) the Company's sales and revenue growth were not indicative of the Company's growth as it transitioned to an enterprise sales cycle; (2) that the Company faced integration challenges with its acquisition of Tagger; (3) as a result, the Company was "self inducing sales headwinds;" (4) as a result, the Company would revise fiscal year 2024 revenue guidance; 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, Inari Medical, Inc. is a medical device company that specializes in developing, manufacturing and commercializing catheter-based technologies for treating venous thromboembolism ("VTE"), a condition that occurs when a blood clot forms in a vein, usually in the lower leg, thigh, or pelvis.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants consistently touted Inari's "record revenue," purportedly driven by "the strength in our core VTE business" while failing to disclose that a significant portion of its expenses were used to compensate medical professionals improperly for using Inari's products. The Complaint further alleges that the Company had been unlawfully compensating health care professionals in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Civil False Claims Act and had misled investors regarding business expenses in order to conceal their illicit conduct.

According to the Complaint, Li Auto Inc. operates in the energy vehicle market in China and designs, develops, manufactures, and sells smart electric vehicles. The Company's product line comprises MPVs and SUVs.

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) Li Auto had overstated the demand for its vehicles and the efficacy of its operating strategy in launching the Li MEGA; (ii) accordingly, the Company was unlikely to meet its Q1 2024 vehicle deliveries estimate; (iii) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial condition; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, Harbor Diversified, Inc. describes itself as "a non-operating holding company that is the parent of a consolidated group of subsidiaries, including AWAC Aviation, Inc., which is the sole member of Air Wisconsin Airlines LLC, a regional air carrier. Harbor is also the direct parent of three other subsidiaries: (1) Lotus Aviation Leasing, LLC, which leases flight equipment to Air Wisconsin, (2) Air Wisconsin Funding LLC, which provides flight equipment financing to Air Wisconsin, and (3) Harbor Therapeutics, Inc., which is a non-operating entity with no material assets."

The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Harbor Diversified's financial statements from May 9, 2022 to the present were misstated due to improper revenue recognition; (2) Harbor Diversified lacked adequate internal controls; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.

According to the Complaint, AXT, Inc. describes itself as a "worldwide materials science company that develops and produces high-performance compound and single element semiconductor substrates, also known as wafers.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AXT, Inc. overstated its property holdings; (2) the Company did not disclose that the attempted listing of an AXT, Inc. subsidiary in China had reportedly failed; (3) AXT, Inc. routinely engaged in environmental violations and unsafe business practices; (4) AXT's production declined in 2023; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.

According to the Complaint, Altimmune, Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing treatments for obesity and liver diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is pemvidutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 ("GLP-1") agonist for the treatment of obesity and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis. GLP-1 agonists are medications that help lower blood sugar levels and promote weight loss. On November 30, 2023, Altimmune announced topline results from its 48-week MOMENTUM Phase 2 trial evaluating pemvidutide for the treatment of obesity.

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) Altimmune overstated the potential for pemvidutide to stand out from competing GLP-1 agonists based on the drug's efficacy and tolerability results observed in the MOMENTUM Trial; (ii) accordingly, the MOMENTUM Trial results were less significant to pemvidutide's clinical, commercial, and competitive prospects than Defendants had led investors to believe; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, Defendants had overstated Altimmune's prospects for finding a strategic partner to develop pemvidutide; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, Intel Corporation designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells computing and related products and services worldwide. The Company's product portfolio is comprised of central processing units (CPUs), chipsets, processors, graphics processing units (GPUs), and other semiconductor products. It also offers silicon devices and software products; and optimization solutions for workloads, such as AI, cryptography, security, storage, and networking.

In 2021, the Company announced it would reconfigure and would be operating through the following reportable segments: Client Computing Group, Data Center and AI, Network and Edge, Mobileye, and Intel Foundry Services ("IFS").

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) the growth of Intel Foundry Services was not indicative of revenue growth reportable under the Internal Foundry segment; (2) the Foundry experienced significant operating losses in 2023; (3) that the Foundry experienced a decline in product profit driven by lower internal revenue; (4) as a result the Foundry model would not be a strong tailwind to the Company's IFS strategy; 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, EQUINIX, INC. describes itself as “the world’s digital infrastructure company.” Equinix owns data centers in most parts of the world. As of February 2016, Equinix owned 260 data centers around the world. Other organizations lease space within these data centers to house their software.The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Equinix manipulated its financials to reduce operational expenses and boost Adjusted Funds From Operations (“AFFO”); (2) Equinix oversold power capacity and did not warn of the risks associated with this practice; (3) Equinix lacked adequate internal controls; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, Globe Life Inc. f/k/a Torchmark Corporation is an insurance company offering a wide range of insurance products, including low-cost life insurance policies that offer comparatively lower payouts. Globe Life operates through five wholly owned insurance subsidiaries, which in turn operate agencies located across the country. AIL is the largest of Globe Life’s subsidiaries, by both premiums collected and number of sales agents employed. Throughout the Class Period, AIL accounted for approximately one third of Globe Life’s total premiums, and nearly half of its total underwriting profits.On April 11, 2024, investment research firm Fuzzy Panda published a report alleging that Globe Life had engaged in wide-spread insurance fraud, while permitting a culture of unchecked sexual harassment.The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made numerous materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning: (i) Globe Life's consistent premium revenue growth, particularly from AIL; and (ii) Globe Life's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the "Code of Conduct"). Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants repeatedly attributed the Company's consistent premium revenue growth "to increased agent count and productivity." The Complaint alleges that as a result of these misrepresentations, Globe Life common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.