Recent Security Class Actions

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.

According to the Complaint, Malibu Boats, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer, and marketer of recreational powerboats, including performance sport, sterndrive, and outboard boats. The Company sells boats via a network of independent dealers, including dealers operating under the common control of Tommy's Boats.

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 Malibu Boats engaged in an "elaborate scheme to over manufacture and pump nearly $100 million of its highest priced, highest margin, slow moving boat inventory into fifteen Tommy's dealerships"; (2) that, as a result, the Company artificially inflated Malibu's sales performance, market share, and stock value; (3) that the Company was withholding certain incentives and rebates from its dealers; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company faced substantial risk of litigation from one of its top dealers, Tommy's; (5) that the Company's CEO departed due to this role in this scheme; and (6) 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, Exscientia p.l.c. is an AI driven Pharma-tech company that engages in the design and develop differentiated medicines for diseases with high unmet patient needs.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) the Company's CEO had engaged in improper relationships with employees that were inconsistent with the Company's standards and values; (ii) the Company's Chairman of the Board had prior knowledge of the CEO's relationships and had improperly addressed the misconduct without consulting the Board; (iii) the Company's maintenance and enforcement of its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics was inadequate to safeguard against the foregoing conduct; (iv) the foregoing failures subjected the Company to a heightened risk of disruptive leadership transitions and/or reputational harm; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, Akero Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that was founded to develop transformational medicines for patients with serious metabolic diseases that lack effective treatment options. The Company is currently focused on advancing its lead product candidate efruxifermin ("EFX"), formerly known as AKR-001, to provide a new treatment for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH"), a serious liver disease.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) approximately 20% of the patients enrolled in its SYMMETRY study had cryptogenic cirrhosis and did not have definitive NASH at baseline; (ii) the cryptogenic cirrhotic patients included in the SYMMETRY study did not have biopsy-proven compensated cirrhosis due to definitive NASH; (iii) the results from the cryptogenic cirrhosis patients were to be excluded from the calculation of the NASH resolution secondary endpoints; (iv) Akero had introduced a confounding factor into the SYMMETRY study's design, materially influencing the study's potential results and increasing the risks that the study would fail to meet its primary endpoint; (v) the SYMMETRY study did not align with U.S. Food & Drug Administration guidance for testing a drug in treating NASH cirrhotics because Akero had not ruled out potential causes of each patient's cirrhosis other than NASH; and (vi) consequently, Akero had materially misrepresented the nature of the SYMMETRY trial, its usefulness in supporting any new drug application, the likelihood that the SYMMETRY trial would be successful as measured by its primary endpoint, and the likelihood that EFX would become a commercial treatment for NASH cirrhotics.

According to the Complaint, Compass Minerals International, Inc. describes itself as “a leading global provider of essential minerals focused on safely delivering where and when it matters to help solve nature’s challenges for customers and communities. [. . .] The Company’s next-generation fire retardants help to slow, stop and prevent wildfires through the use of high-performing and environmentally friendly products.”The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Compass Minerals overstated the likelihood that it would be awarded a renewed U.S. Forest Service contract for the use of its proprietary magnesium chloride-based aerial fire retardants for the 2024 fire season, as a result of safety issues presented by its fire retardant; (2) Compass Minerals materially overstated the extent to which testing had confirmed that its fire retardants were safe; 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, Autodesk, Inc. describes itself as a “global leader in 3D design, engineering and entertainment technology solutions, spanning architecture, engineering, construction, product design, manufacturing, media, and entertainment. Our customers design, fabricate, manufacture, and build anything by visualizing, simulating, and analyzing real-world performance early in the design process. The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Autodesk, Inc. lacked adequate internal controls as a result of issues with its free cash flow and non-GAAP operating margin practices; 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 times.