On February 26, 2024, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. was sued for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, Palo Alto Network common stock during the period from August 18, 2023 through February 20, 2024, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
Recent Security Class Actions
According to the Complaint, Lantronix, Inc. is a global industrial and enterprise IoT provider of solutions that purportedly target high growth applications in specific verticals such as smart grids, intelligent transportation, smart cities, and AI data centers. The Company organizes its products and solutions into three product lines: (i) Embedded IoT Solutions, (ii) IoT System Solutions, and (iii) Software & Services.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) Lantronix overstated demand and/or its visibility into demand for its IoT products; (ii) Lantronix’s customers were reducing elevated levels of inventory of IoT products, thereby causing a general slowdown in the Company’s business; (iii) certain of Lantronix’s embedded IOT revenues expected from a customer design win were delayed to the next fiscal year; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, Lantronix anticipated lower sales for its embedded IOT solutions for fiscal year 2024; (v) accordingly, Lantronix was unlikely to meet its own previously issued guidance for fiscal year 2024; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On February 23, 2024, Lantronix, Inc. was sued for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Lantronix securities between May 11, 2023 and February 8, 2024, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).
According to the Complaint, Innodata Inc. is a global data engineering company that purports to be “delivering the promise of AI to many of the world’s most prestigious companies.” The Company states that it provides AI-enabled software platforms and managed services for AI data collection/annotation, AI digital transformation, and industry-specific business processes.The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts, including that Innodata: (1) did not have a viable AI technology; (2) its Goldengate AI platform is a rudimentary software developed by just a handful of employees; (3) it was not going to utilize AI to any significant degree for new Silicon Valley contracts; (4) it was not effectively investing in research and development for AI; and (5) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Innodata’s AI business and development and related financial results, growth, and prospects.
On February 21, 2024, Innodata Inc. was sued for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired, Innodata common stock during the period from May 9, 2019 through February 14, 2024, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
On February 20, 2024, Fox Factory Holding Corp. was sued for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Fox Factory common stock between May 6, 2021 and November 2, 2023, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
According to the Complaint, Sunnova Energy International Inc. provides energy as a service in the U.S. The Company offers electricity, as well as operations and maintenance, monitoring, repairs and replacements, equipment upgrades, on-site power optimization, and diagnostics services.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) Sunnova routinely engaged in predatory business practices against disadvantaged homeowners and communities, (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny, as well as significant reputational and/or financial harm; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
According to the Complaint, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. is a leading sporting goods retailer that sells sports equipment, apparel, footwear, and accessories to retail consumers throughout the United States. DSG is an “omnichannel” retailer, meaning it offers products to consumers in physical store locations as well as online and through mobile apps. The Company has over 700 physical locations across the United States.The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) demand for products in DSG’s Outdoor segment was slowing faster than Defendants represented, resulting in excess inventory; (ii) the “structural changes” that Defendants repeatedly touted, including differentiated products, improved pricing technology, and more efficient clearance channels, did not allow the Company to manage its excess inventory without hurting the Company’s profitability; (iii) the need to liquidate excess inventory, including in the Outdoor segment, would have a materially negative effect on the Company’s profitability; and (iv) as a result of (i)-(iii) above, Defendants’ statements about DSG’s business condition and prospects were materially false and misleading when made.
According to the Complaint, Amplitude, Inc. makes software for what it refers to as “digital optimization,” or the process of helping companies figure out more about how their customers engage with the companies’ digital experiences. Amplitude’s technology is designed to provide insights regarding how customers interact with digital platforms or “apps,” allowing companies to determine which features are resonating with customers and tweak their products to maximize user engagement, monetization, and other desirable metrics.The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them as follows: (a) that Amplitude’s land-and-expand strategy was years away from significantly accelerating revenues among its newer client cohorts; (b) that the rapid acceleration in the Company’s 2Q21 results resulted from the ephemeral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic which had not continued by the start of the Class Period, as Amplitude clients were expanding at a slower pace; and (c) that, as a result of (a)-(b) above, Amplitude’s business, operations, financial results, and prospects were materially worse than represented to investors during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a commercial-stage biotechnology company that engages in the discovery and development of treatments for ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and other neurodegenerative diseases. The Company's products include, among others, AMX0035 (commercially referred to as "RELYVRIO" in the U.S.), a dual UPR-Bax apoptosis inhibitor composed of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, for the treatment of ALS in adults in the U.S.
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) Defendants had overstated RELYVRIO's commercial prospects; (ii) patients were discontinuing treatment with RELYVRIO after six months; (iii) the rate at which new patients were starting treatment with RELYVRIO was decreasing; (iv) accordingly, Defendants had also overstated RELYVRIO's prescription rate; (v) Defendants attempted to hide the foregoing negative trends from investors and the market by blocking analysts from viewing RELYVRIO's prescription data; and (vi) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
