Current ChemoCentryx, Inc. shareholders who have held shares of the Company’s stock since at least November 26, 2019, can seek corporate reforms, the return of funds back to company coffers and potentially a court approved incentive award if appropriate.

The underlying class action complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the study design of the Phase III ADVOCATE drug trial presented issues about the interpretability of the trial data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV; (2) the data from the Phase III ADVOCATE trial raised serious safety concerns for avacopan; (3) these issues presented a substantial concern regarding the viability of ChemoCentryx’s NDA for avacopan for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you would like to learn more about this matter at no cost to you, please fill out the form provided or contact us at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com or call 267-507-6085.

https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/chemocntryx-investigation/

Current Root, Inc. shareholders who have held shares of the Company’s stock since at least October 28, 2020, can seek corporate reforms, the return of funds back to company coffers and potentially a court approved incentive award if appropriate.

According to an underlying class action complaint, on or around October 27, 2020, Root conducted its initial public offering (“IPO”), selling 26.8 million shares of common stock priced at $27.00 per share. Then, on March 9, 2021, BofA Securities analyst Joshua Shanker initiated coverage of Root with an “Underperform” rating on the premise that the Company is unlikely to be cash flow positive until 2027, finding that Root “will require not insignificant cash infusions from the capital markets to bridge its cash flow needs.” On this news, Root’s stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 1.46%, to close at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing a total decline of 54.93% from the offering price.

https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/root-inc-investigation/

On 8/24/21, a class action survived a motion to dismiss and that action is now in settlement mediation. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Corcept had improperly paid doctors to promote its drug Korlym; (2) Corcept aggressively promoted Korlym for off-label uses; (3) Corcept’s sole specialty pharmacy was a related party; (4) Corcept artificially inflated its revenue and sales using illicit sales practices through a related party; (5) such practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (6) as a result, defendants’ positive statements about Corcept’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Longer term holders may be able to seek corporate governance reforms and an incentive award where appropriate.

to learn more, contact jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

GRABAR LAW OFFICE INVESTIGATES POTENTIAL SHAREHOLDER ACTION ON BEHALF OF CURRENT SHAREHOLDERS OF MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. (NYSE: MHK)$MHK

Current Mohawk Industries, Inc. (NYSE: MHK) shareholders who have held shares of the Company’s stock since at least April 28, 2017, have standing to seek corporate reforms, the return of funds back to company coffers and potentially a court approved incentive award if appropriate.

On September 29, 2021, a federal court has determined that securities fraud claims can move forward against Mohawk and certain of its executive officers. That action concerns Mohawk’s alleged fraudulent scheme to falsify revenues through fictitious “sales” of products that were not delivered to customers and to the reasons for the Company’s ballooning inventory. Specifically, at the end of each financial quarter, employees in Mohawk’s North American distribution centers were instructed to load goods on Company trucks on Fridays and pretend to deliver the goods on Saturdays to customers they knew were closed for deliveries and, thus, not there to accept or reject them (the “Saturday Scheme”). Mohawk would nevertheless book the revenue from these “sales” as soon as the products were put on Mohawk’s trucks. When the truth of this scheme was finally revealed to investors, over $7.4 billion in shareholder value was lost.

Unlike a class action, brought on behalf of damaged investors, a shareholder derivative action is an action brought by a shareholder of a public company on behalf of and for the benefit of the company itself against the directors and/or officers of that company. In a derivative action, shareholders “step into the shoes” of the directors and officers of a company and bring litigation that the board would be unwilling to pursue on its own.

If you would like to learn more about this matter at no cost to you, contact us at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com or call 267-507-6085.

On May 14, settled the securities class action for $4,000,000. While purchasers of ZYNE who bought between March 11, 2019 and September 17, 2019, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”) can submit a proof of claim, longer holders who bought before March 11, 2019 can seek governance reforms and a return of funds to the company from D&O policies - as well as potentially a court approved incentive award where appropriate.

To learn more, message me here or at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/gogo-inc-investigation/

https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/precigen-inc-investigation/

$AQUA - Per court Order, Evoqua's pre-IPO disclosures were misleading, in that they failed to mention the extent to which the company was pushing out experienced employees and replacing them with cheaper, less-seasoned workers and failed to disclose that it also fired employees who helped the company integrate new businesses following acquisitions. Per the Order, investors can also pursue charges that the company brought forward revenue from future quarters and gave existing customers steep discounts to boost purchases, the order said.

Current Evoqua shareholders who have held shares of the Company’s stock since at least November 6, 2017 have standing to seek corporate governance reforms, the return of funds back to company coffers and potentially a court approved incentive award if appropriate at no cost.

https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/evoqua-water-investigation/

$COTY Current Coty shareholders who have held shares of the Company’s stock since at least October 3, 2016 have standing to seek corporate governance reforms, the return of funds back to company coffers and potentially a court approved incentive award if appropriate at no cost. See https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/coty-inc-investigation/

For any truly long AFI holders: https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/armstrong-flooring-investigation/

https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/apyx-investigation/

https://www.law360.com/articles/1337837/gtt-investors-seek-25m-deal-over-disaster-interoute-buy

https://www.law360.com/articles/1367151/saxena-white-seeks-9m-for-25m-gtt-securities-settlement

https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/gtt-communications-inc-investigations/

Per above, it is alleged that officers and directors of GTT Communications, Inc. failed to disclose that: (1) there were delays in migrating Interoute's legacy systems and processes into GTT's client management database system; (2) Interoute had made a strategic shift to focus on providing cloud services that deviated from GTT's core cloud networking business; (3) Interoute's sales force was underperforming and ineffective at selling GTT's core cloud networking services. These governance failures led to the announcement of a $25 million class action settlement.

Current GTT shareholders who have held shares of the Company’s stock since at least February 26, 2018 have standing to seek corporate governance reforms, the return of funds back to company coffers and potentially a court approved incentive award if appropriate.

The suit has been filed - and it seeks to return money BACK TO THE COMPANY from D&O policies. Actually seeks to accrue a benefit to the company - not to take money from it.
Happy holidays to you.
Stay safe and well.

$IDEX shareholders who have held since shares since at least February 2, 2017, have filed a shareholder derivative suit seeking better corporate governance and restitution to the company from its officers and directors for their alleged false statements regarding the company's integrations of artificial intelligence and blockchain technology into its consumer electronics business and crude oil business.

Long term shareholders can demand better governance and restitution to the company, as well as a court approved incentive award where appropriate at no cost to them whatsoever.

To learn more, contact jgrabar@grabarlaw.com - www.grabarlaw.com

According to the complaint, while Ideanomics touted its acquisitions, saying Ideanomics would reach $280 million to $300 million in revenues for the 2017 fiscal year, its executives hid the companies' low revenue and combined losses from just a quarter before the acquisitions.

Ideanomics ended up being "nowhere near its issued revenue guidance" of $280 million to $300 million for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2017, according to the complaint.

It announced in January 2018, that it already generated $170 million for the fourth quarter from its crude oil business alone, when those revenues were actually only $19 million, according to the complaint.

In February 2018, Ideanomics announced it didn't expect to exceed $144 million in revenues for the entire fiscal year that ended Dec. 31, 2017, and announced the company had dismissed its earlier CEO.

The company's stock price fell 39.3%, from $2.80 per share to close at $1.70 per share on Feb. 23, 2018, according to the complaint.

Several more disclosures — generating far less revenue than anticipated, admitting it wasn't integrating blockchain or AI-based logistics solutions — resulted in stock prices dropping three more times, according to the complaint.

Beginning in March 2020, the company touted a 1 million square-foot electric vehicle expo center in Qingdao, Shandong Province, according to the complaint.

Ideanomics admitted in June that the Qingdao electric vehicle expo was supposed to reach 1 million square feet but was currently in the first phase of its launch and only occupied 215,000 square feet.

The stock price dropped a fifth and final time, during the two relevant periods, between Feb. 1, 2017, and Nov. 13, 2018, and March 20, 2020, through the present, according to the complaint.


https://www.law360.com/articles/1291436/ideanomics-investors-sue-over-shifty-biz-stock-drops

For how long have you held?

NTNX's Motion to Dismiss the class action complaint on 9/14/20. That case is on behalf of holders who purchased NTNX from March 2, 2018 through February 28, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nutanix investors under the federal securities law for allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nutanix had reallocated lead generation spending to other priorities, which represented a significant strategy shift from how the Company had historically conducted its sales efforts; (2) Nutanix’s decision to reallocate lead generation spending had caused a large disruption in the Company’s sales execution, thereby negatively impacting Nutanix’s sales pipeline and slowing the Company’s sales growth; (3) Nutanix had fallen behind in its sales hiring goals, which was further impairing the Company’s efforts to grow its sales pipeline development; (4) the improvement in the Company’s gross margins was not the result of the changes being made to the Company’s business model, including the shift from hardware to software and the change from licensing to subscription platforms, but rather was the result of the Company’s decision to reallocate lead generation spending.

Shareholders who purchased prior to 3/2/18 can make a demand for better corporate governance, return of funds from the class action back to the company, and a court approved cash incentive award.

Best regards,

Josh Grabar
jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

https://www.law360.com/classaction/articles/1326428/inovio-defends-virus-vaccine-claims-in-bid-to-nix-stock-suit

Longer term shareholders can make a demand for corporate governance reforms and seek court approved incentive awards where appropriate at no cost to them whatsoever.

To learn more, message me here or at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

Best regards,

Josh

https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/united-therapeutics-corporation/

My pleasure.

Yes. I can be reached at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

Josh Grabar
jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
O: 276-507-6085
C: 215-840-7112
www.grabarlaw.com

After a well-publicized meeting with President Donald Trump on March 2, CEO J. Joseph Kim repeated his claim about a vaccine and said Inovio could begin testing in early April, and the stock price quadrupled. But on March 9, the day Inovio had planned to offer $50 million of its common stock for sale, a short-seller report called the company's vaccine claims "ludicrous and dangerous," and its share price dropped from $18.72 to $9.83 by the end of the day and then to $5.70 by the end of the next.
A shareholder filed suit a class action suit, claiming the company had not actually developed a vaccine as Kim had claimed and instead capitalized on hype surrounding the emerging pandemic to artificially inflate Inovio's share price.
After a lead plaintiff was named in June, the proposed class filed an amended suit claiming that in addition to Kim's earlier misstatements, Inovio should be held liable for statements made between March 24 and May 12 assuring investors the company would be able to deliver 1 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of 2020.
The company "said nothing" in that time about the fact that the manufacturer of its vaccine had canceled its contract with Inovio on May 7, the suit claims. Then on June 3, it was publicized that Inovio had sued the manufacturer over the canceled contract, stating in the suit that the cancellation made it "mathematically impossible" for Inovio to deliver the 1 million vaccine doses by the end of the year.
The company is now seeking to dismiss the complaint, having filed its brief late last week.
A long term holder who has held shares since prior to 2/14/20 as of right can make a derivative demand for increased governance and a return of class action suit related costs and fees back to the company via D&O policies, and may be entitled to an incentive award (which often ranges between $5,000 and as high as $50,000) - at no cost whatsoever.

Congrats! Have a great day!

https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/world-acceptance-corp-investigation/

https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/maxar-technologies-investigation/

Okay. Feel free to email me at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

$GMHI - Gores Metropoulos, Inc. (NASDAQ CM: GMHI) entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Dawn Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub 1"), Dawn Merger Sub II, LLC ("Merger Sub 2"), and Luminar Technologies, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Merger Sub 1 will merge with and into Luminar, with Luminar surviving. Shareholders of Luminar will receive an aggregate consideration of $2,928,828,692 in shares of Gores Metropoulos Class A and Class B common stock.

GMHI filed an amended proxy statement a couple of days ago but there’s still no record date or stockholder vote date. However, they are probably going to schedule them in the near future.

The deal requires approval of Gores stockholders.

@thehumanchessmachine
On September 11, 2020, Judge William J. Martínez of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the pending securities class action, paving the way for litigation to proceed. According to the complaint, in October 2017, MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associated Ltd. purchased DigitalGlobe and acquired DigitalGlobe’s satellites, including the WorldView-4 satellite, and rebranded itself as Maxar. In March 2018, Maxar announced a contract to build a satellite called AMOS-8, touting the contract as a win. A few months later, on August 7, 2018, Spruce Point Capital Management issued a report questioning Maxar’s financial statements and alleging that “Maxar’s balance sheet [was] inflated with goodwill and overcapitalized intangible assets,” estimating an impairment in intangible assets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Then, in September 2018, Maxar revealed the loss of its AMOS-8 contract. In October 2018, the Company disclosed $345.9 million in impairment losses and $37.7 million impairment charges related to its GeoComm business. In addition to these disclosures, on January 7, 2019, Maxar announced its WorldView-4 “[would] no longer produce useable energy” because it had lost stability.

The class case will likely settle in the short term and shareholders who have held since at least March 2018 can make a demand for better corporate governance and a return of funds expended in defending litigation back from D&O policies. They can also seek a cash incentive award - all at no cost.

I can send more info. Email me at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

Best regards,

Josh Grabar

I think the reality of the shareholder class action is already baked into the price.

Longer term shareholders can demand corporate governance reforms and a return of funds to the company as well as substantial court approved cash incentive awards. Let me know if you want to know more.

Do you still hold any MAXAR shares?

On September 11, 2020, Judge William J. Martínez of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the pending securities class action, paving the way for litigation to proceed. According to the complaint, in October 2017, MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associated Ltd. purchased DigitalGlobe and acquired DigitalGlobe’s satellites, including the WorldView-4 satellite, and rebranded itself as Maxar. In March 2018, Maxar announced a contract to build a satellite called AMOS-8, touting the contract as a win. A few months later, on August 7, 2018, Spruce Point Capital Management issued a report questioning Maxar’s financial statements and alleging that “Maxar’s balance sheet [was] inflated with goodwill and overcapitalized intangible assets,” estimating an impairment in intangible assets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Then, in September 2018, Maxar revealed the loss of its AMOS-8 contract. In October 2018, the Company disclosed $345.9 million in impairment losses and $37.7 million impairment charges related to its GeoComm business. In addition to these disclosures, on January 7, 2019, Maxar announced its WorldView-4 “[would] no longer produce useable energy” because it had lost stability. Longer term shareholders can demand corporate governance reforms and perhaps a return of funds to the company as well as incentive awards via derivative actions.

There are a couple of class actions filed. The futures spoofing cases have met with some success recently. Those who sign up as class representatives can also seek court approved incentive awards - which have ranged in these cases and can be in the 6 figures.

For anyone who has traded precious metals futures contracts between 2008 and July 2016:

Complaints have been filed on behalf of traders of gold, silver, platinum and palladium futures by traders who transacted in those contracts between January 2008 and July 2016.

A pair of commodities traders sued Scotiabank on Friday after the Toronto-based bank admitted in a $127 million settlement with the U.S. government to an eight-year scheme to manipulate the market for precious metals futures contracts.

Complaints have been filed accusing the bank of a spoofing scheme that was detailed by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission on Aug. 19, when the agencies announced Scotiabank had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and would pay $127.4 million in fines and forfeiture.

Regulators said Scotiabank had admitted to its role in a scheme by which four bank traders engaged in manipulative trading in the gold, silver, platinum and palladium futures contracts markets on the New York Mercantile Exchange Inc. and Commodity Exchange Inc.

Complaints have been filed on behalf of traders of gold, silver, platinum and palladium futures by traders who transacted in those contracts between January 2008 and July 2016.

A pair of commodities traders sued Scotiabank on Friday after the Toronto-based bank admitted in a $127 million settlement with the U.S. government to an eight-year scheme to manipulate the market for precious metals futures contracts.

The complaints accuse the bank of a spoofing scheme that was detailed by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission on Aug. 19, when the agencies announced Scotiabank had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and would pay $127.4 million in fines and forfeiture.

Regulators said Scotiabank had admitted to its role in a scheme by which four bank traders engaged in manipulative trading in the gold, silver, platinum and palladium futures contracts markets on the New York Mercantile Exchange Inc. and Commodity Exchange Inc.

Hi Pro -

Complaints have been filed on behalf of traders of gold, silver, platinum and palladium futures by traders who transacted in those contracts between January 2008 and July 2016.

A pair of commodities traders sued Scotiabank on Friday after the Toronto-based bank admitted in a $127 million settlement with the U.S. government to an eight-year scheme to manipulate the market for precious metals futures contracts.

Casey Sterk and Kevin Maher filed their complaint in New Jersey federal court, accusing the bank of a spoofing scheme that was detailed by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission on Aug. 19, when the agencies announced Scotiabank had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and would pay $127.4 million in fines and forfeiture.

Regulators said Scotiabank had admitted to its role in a scheme by which four bank traders engaged in manipulative trading in the gold, silver, platinum and palladium futures contracts markets on the New York Mercantile Exchange Inc. and Commodity Exchange Inc.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/acting-manhattan-us-attorney-announces-49-million-settlement-biotech-testing-company

Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces $49 Million Settlement With Biotech Testing Company For Fraudulent Billing And Kickback Practices

Progenity Inc. Admits to Fraudulently Using Wrong Billing Code, Paying “Draw Fees” to Physicians, and Providing Meals and Happy Hours to Physicians and Their Staff

Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Scott J. Lampert, Special Agent in Charge of the New York Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Health, Office of Inspector General (“HHS OIG”), Leigh-Alistair Barzey, Special Agent in Charge of the Northeast Field Office of the U.S. Department of Defense - Office of Inspector General’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service (“DCIS”), and Christopher Algieri, Special Agent in Charge of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), Office of Inspector General, Northeast Field Office (“VA OIG”), announced today a $49 million settlement with PROGENITY, INC. (“PROGENITY”), a San Diego-based biotechnology company that provides molecular and diagnostic tests. The settlement resolves claims that PROGENITY fraudulently billed federal healthcare programs for prenatal tests and provided kickbacks to physicians to induce to them to order PROGENITY tests for their patients. The Office’s lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court alleges that PROGENITY overbilled Medicaid and the VA by fraudulently using a billing code that misrepresented the tests provided. The lawsuit further alleges that PROGENITY provided illegal kickbacks in the form of excessive “draw fees” to physicians, meals and happy hours for physicians and their staff, and the improper reduction or waiver of patient coinsurance and deductible payments.

Under the settlement approved today by U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska, PROGENITY will pay $19,449,316 to the United States to resolve the kickback claims and the Medicaid and VA fraudulent billing claims, and also makes extensive admissions regarding the company’s conduct. PROGENITY will also pay $13,150,684 to various states to resolve these claims. In addition, PROGENITY will pay $16.4 million to resolve similar fraudulent billing claims related to TRICARE and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program through a separate civil settlement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California (“USAO SDCA”), and has entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with that office.

Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “Progenity received millions of dollars from federal healthcare programs through its fraudulent billing and kickback schemes. The company misrepresented the tests it performed, and tried to get doctors to order Progenity tests by paying them excessive fees and providing meals and happy hours for them and their staff. Our Office will continue to hold healthcare providers accountable when they engage in fraud and other illegal conduct.”

HHS-OIG Special Agent in Charge Scott J. Lampert said: “Kickbacks and fraudulent billing schemes undermine the integrity of our healthcare system, compromise patient care, and increase the financial burden on taxpayers. Along with our law enforcement partners, HHS-OIG will continue to ensure that those billing federal health insurance programs do so in an honest manner.”

DCIS Special Agent in Charge Leigh-Alistair Barzey said: “Ensuring the integrity of TRICARE, the U.S. Defense Department's healthcare system for military members and their families, is top priority for the DCIS. This settlement agreement is the result of a joint effort and demonstrates the DCIS’s commitment to work with the USAO-SDNY and its law enforcement partners to investigate and prosecute kickbacks and other fraudulent schemes that impact TRICARE.”

Shareholders may have rights to seek return of fines via D&O policies as well as governance reforms.

Demands can be made for books and records, governance reform and potentially return of funds from D&O policies by longer term holders who have held since at least 6/19/17.

Any truly long CVSI holders here?

Anyone long on the LSE shares of RB.?

Any long holders of the LSE shares INDV?

Best,

Josh

It looks like Wells Fargo - round two.

Hi Tom and Friends,

Several firms are investigating Dycom Industries, Inc. (DY) on behalf of the Company's stockholders.

In essence a shareholder complaint was that was filed in federal court on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the Company's stock between November 20, 2017 and August 10, 2018 has survived a motion to dismiss. According to the complaint, during that time period Dycom and certain executive officers issued a series of false and misleading statements to investors, and failed to disclose that certain top customers had "cancelled millions of dollars' worth of contracts," which cost Dycom "millions of dollars in lost revenue and critical business relationships with key customers and permitting authorities."

Firms are now investigating whether members of Dycom's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with this alleged misconduct.

Current Dycom stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's stock prior to November 20, 2017 would have standing to participate, including seeking return of funds back to the company coffers and a court approved incentive award if appropriate.

Anyone on this board held Dycom since 2017?

Stay safe,

Josh