Recent Security Class Actions

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.

According to the Complaint, Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company which operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies. The Company provides products and services and reports results through four segments: Annuities, Life Insurance, Group Protection, and Retirement Plan Services.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 was experiencing a decline in its variable universal life insurance (“VUL”) business; (2) that, as a result, the goodwill associated with the life insurance business was overstated; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s policy lapse assumptions were outdated; (4) that, as a result, the Company’s reserves were overstated; (5) that, as a result, the Company’s reported financial results and financial statements were misstated; 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, Global Cord Blood Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides umbilical cord blood storage and ancillary services in the in the Beijing Municipality, Guangdong Province, and Zhejiang Province of the People’s Republic of China. On April 29, 2022, after the market closed, Global Cord announced that it had entered into a Material Definitive Agreement to acquire Cellenkos Inc. for over $1 billion, including $664 million in cash and 114 million Global Cord shares— roughly the same number of the Company’s shares that were already outstanding (the “Transaction”). 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) Global Cord employed a capital allocation strategy designed to reserve funds for Company insiders and related parties rather than for the benefit of Company shareholders; (ii) Global Cord's decisions to reject multiple going private offers and enter into the Transaction were nothing more than self-serving and conflicted attempts by Defendants to divert company funds to corporate insiders and related parties; (iii) Defendants had fundamentally misrepresented to investors Global Cord's approach to capital allocation, strategic investments, acquisitions, and related party transactions as a result of the misappropriation by Defendant Kam and his entities of hundreds of millions of dollars from the Company; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a price comparison platform for prescription drugs which, in many cases, offers consumers access to lower prices (through discount codes and coupons) for their medications. GoodRx generates most of its revenue from contracts with pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) who agree to pay GoodRx a commission on prescription drug purchases made by consumers who use GoodRx’s discount codes and coupons at participating pharmacies. GoodRx also generates a portion of its revenue from subscription plans like the “Kroger Rx Savings Club,” which provides “access [to] lower prescription prices at” pharmacies operated by The Kroger Co.The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (1) while Kroger accounted for less than 5% of the pharmacies accepting GoodRx discounts, Kroger was responsible for nearly 25% of GoodRx’s total prescription transactions revenue (the Company’s primary revenue stream); and (2) Kroger could unilaterally cease accepting GoodRx discounts, cutting off some or all of GoodRx’s revenues for purchases at Kroger’s pharmacies; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ representations about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

According to the Complaint, Sharecare, Inc. was founded in 2009 to develop an interactive health and wellness platform. Sharecare’s virtual health platform is designed to help people, patients, providers, employers, health plans, government organizations, and communities optimize individual and population-wide well-being by driving positive behavior change.The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sharecare lacked adequate internal controls; 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.

According to the Complaint, Rivian Automotive, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and sells EVs and accessories. The Company’s products include, among others, the R1T, a two-row, five-passenger pickup truck, and the R1S, a three-row, seven passenger sport utility vehicle, both of which are marketed as consumer EVs, as well as the Electric Delivery Van (“EDV”), which is marketed as a commercial EV. Rivian sells its products directly to customers in both the consumer and commercial markets.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) Rivian had overstated demand for its products, as well as its ability to withstand negative, near-term macroeconomic impacts; (ii) accordingly, Rivian's business was experiencing reduced demand and increased customer cancellations as a result of, inter alia, high interest rates; (iii) as a result, Rivian's order bank had significantly deteriorated; (iv) all the foregoing was likely to, and did, negatively impact the Company's anticipated earnings and vehicle production targets for 2024; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.