Latest news with #D.N.J.
Business Upturn
22-06-2025
- Business
- Business Upturn
INVESTOR DEADLINE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (RCAT) Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Investor Class Action Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO, June 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCAT) securities between March 18, 2022 and January 15, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until Tuesday, July 22, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit. Captioned Olsen v. Red Cat Holdings, Inc. , No. 25-cv-05427 (D.N.J.), the Red Cat class action lawsuit charges Red Cat as well as certain of Red Cat's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [email protected]. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Red Cat, together with its subsidiaries, provides products and solutions to drone industry. Red Cat's products include, among others, the 'Teal 2' drone, a small, unmanned aircraft system designed to purportedly 'Dominate the Night' during nighttime military operations. The Red Cat class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Red Cat's Salt Lake City facility's production capacity, and defendants' progress in developing the same, was overstated; and (ii) the overall value of Red Cat's Short Range Reconnaissance Program of Record Tranche 2 contract (the 'SRR Contract') was overstated. The Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that on July 27, 2023, Red Cat revealed that its Salt Lake City facility could only currently produce 100 drones per month, the facility was still being built, refined, and expanded, and that construction of the facility was only 'substantially completed' and potentially could reach a production capacity of 1,000 drones per month over the next 2 to 3 years, but only with additional capital investments and manufacturing efficiencies realized. On this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell nearly 9%, according to the complaint. Then, on September 23, 2024, the Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that Red Cat announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025, reporting losses per share of $0.17, missing consensus estimates by $0.09, and revenue of $2.8 million, missing consensus estimates by $1.07 million. According to the complaint, Red Cat further disclosed that Red Cat had spent 'the past four months . . . retooling [the Salt Lake City facility] and preparing for high volume production,' while admitting that a 'pause in manufacturing of Teal 2 and building Army prototypes impacted Teal 2 sales' because, among other things, Red Cat 'couldn't produce and sell Teal 2 units while retooling [its] factory.' The Red Cat class action lawsuit alleges that on this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell more than 25%. Finally, the Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 16, 2025, Kerrisdale Capital published a report alleging that '[t]he SRR contract that Red Cat won in November and preemptively announced without the Army's permission is much smaller and less favorable than management as intimated,' and that '[i]t's highly implausible that a mass-production facility for manufacturing drones has been built at any point in the last two years for less than $1 million.' On this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell more than 21% over two trading sessions, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Red Cat securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Red Cat class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Red Cat class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Red Cat class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 [email protected]
Business Upturn
20-06-2025
- Business
- Business Upturn
INVESTOR DEADLINE: Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (RCKT) Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO, June 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCKT) securities between February 27, 2025 and May 26, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until August 11, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. Captioned Ho v. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , No. 25-cv-10049 (D.N.J.), the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit charges Rocket Pharmaceuticals as well as one of Rocket Pharmaceuticals' top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [email protected]. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Rocket Pharmaceuticals operates as a late-stage biotechnology company that focuses on developing gene therapies for rare and devastating diseases. The Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit alleges that defendants provided investors with material information concerning Rocket Pharmaceuticals' Phase 2 pivotal trial of RP-A501 for the treatment of Danon disease while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of RP-A501's safety and clinical trial protocol; notably, that Rocket Pharmaceuticals knew Serious Adverse Events, including death of participants enrolled in the study, were a risk. In particular, Rocket Pharmaceuticals amended the trial's protocol to introduce a novel immunomodulatory agent to the pretreatment regimen without providing this critical update to shareholders, according to the complaint. The Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 27, 2025, Rocket Pharmaceuticals announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration placed a clinical hold on the RP-A501 Phase 2 pivotal study after at least one patient suffered a Serious Adverse Event, ultimately, death, while enrolled in the study following a substantive amendment to the protocol that Rocket Pharmaceuticals failed to disclose to investors at the time management made the revision. On this news, the price of Rocket Pharmaceuticals stock fell, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Rocket Pharmaceuticals securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 [email protected]
Business Wire
19-06-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
RCKT INVESTOR NOTICE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Announces that Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCKT) securities between February 27, 2025 and May 26, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until August 11, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. Captioned Ho v. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 25-cv-10049 (D.N.J.), the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit charges Rocket Pharmaceuticals as well as one of Rocket Pharmaceuticals' top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: CASE ALLEGATIONS: Rocket Pharmaceuticals operates as a late-stage biotechnology company that focuses on developing gene therapies for rare and devastating diseases. The Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit alleges that defendants provided investors with material information concerning Rocket Pharmaceuticals' Phase 2 pivotal trial of RP-A501 for the treatment of Danon disease while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of RP-A501's safety and clinical trial protocol; notably, that Rocket Pharmaceuticals knew Serious Adverse Events, including death of participants enrolled in the study, were a risk. In particular, Rocket Pharmaceuticals amended the trial's protocol to introduce a novel immunomodulatory agent to the pretreatment regimen without providing this critical update to shareholders, according to the complaint. The Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 27, 2025, Rocket Pharmaceuticals announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration placed a clinical hold on the RP-A501 Phase 2 pivotal study after at least one patient suffered a Serious Adverse Event, ultimately, death, while enrolled in the study following a substantive amendment to the protocol that Rocket Pharmaceuticals failed to disclose to investors at the time management made the revision. On this news, the price of Rocket Pharmaceuticals stock fell, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Rocket Pharmaceuticals securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Rocket Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Malaysian Reserve
07-06-2025
- Business
- Malaysian Reserve
URGN INVESTOR DEADLINE: UroGen Pharma Ltd. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO, June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of UroGen Pharma Ltd. (NASDAQ: URGN) securities between July 27, 2023 and May 15, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until July 28, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit. Captioned Cockrell v. UroGen Pharma Ltd., 25-cv-06088 (D.N.J.), the UroGen class action lawsuit charges UroGen as well as certain of UroGen's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@ CASE ALLEGATIONS: UroGen engages in the development and commercialization of solutions for specialty cancers. According to the complaint, UroGen's lead pipeline product is UGN-102 (mitomycin), an intravesical solution intended to treat low-grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The UroGen class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) UroGen's ENVISION clinical study for UGN-102 was not designed to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness of UGN-102 because it lacked a concurrent control arm; (ii) as a result, UroGen would have difficulty demonstrating that the duration of response endpoint was attributable to UGN-102; (iii) UroGen failed to heed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ('FDA') warnings about the study design used to support a new drug application ('NDA') for UGN-102; and (iv) as a result, there was a substantial risk that the NDA for UGN-102 would not be approved. The UroGen class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 16, 2025, the FDA published a briefing document in advance of its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting regarding UroGen's NDA for UGN-102, which stated that '[g]iven that ENVISION lacked a concurrent control arm, the primary endpoints of complete response (CR) and duration of response (DOR) are difficult to interpret,' and that the FDA had 'recommended a randomized trial design to the Applicant several times during their product's development due to concerns with interpreting efficacy results' but UroGen 'chose not to conduct a randomized trial with a design and endpoints that the FDA considered appropriate.' On this news, the price of UroGen stock fell nearly 26%, according to the complaint. Then, on May 21, 2025, the UroGen class action lawsuit further alleges that the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted against approving the UGN-102 NDA, finding that the overall benefit-risk of the investigation therapy UGN-102 is not favorable in patients with recurrent low-grade, intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. On this news, the price of UroGen stock fell nearly 45%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired UroGen securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the UroGen class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the UroGen class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the UroGen class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 info@
Malaysian Reserve
19-05-2025
- Business
- Malaysian Reserve
CIVI INVESTOR ALERT: Civitas Resources, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Investor Class Action Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO, May 19, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Civitas Resources, Inc. (NYSE: CIVI) securities between February 27, 2024 and February 24, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until Tuesday, July 1, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit. Captioned Lin v. Civitas Resources, Inc., No. 25-cv-03791 (D.N.J.), the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit charges Civitas Resources and certain of Civitas Resources' top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@ CASE ALLEGATIONS: Civitas Resources is an exploration and production company that focuses on the acquisition, development, and production of crude oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas from its assets in the Denver–Julesburg ('DJ') Basin in Colorado and the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico. According to the complaint, throughout 2024, Civitas Resources maintained steady oil production and accelerated the number of Civitas Resources' turned-in-lines ('TILs') – i.e., newly drilled oil wells that have been designated as operational and added to the total number of wells in which Civitas Resources owns a working interest – between the DJ and Permian Basins. The Civitas Resources class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Civitas Resources was highly likely to significantly reduce its oil production in 2025 as a result of, among other things, declines following the production peak at the DJ Basin in the fourth quarter of 2024 and a low TIL count at the end of 2024; (ii) increasing its oil production would require Civitas Resources to acquire additional acreage and development locations, thereby incurring significant debt and causing Civitas Resources to sell corporate assets to offset its acquisition costs; (iii) Civitas Resources' financial condition would require it to implement disruptive cost reduction measures including a significant workforce reduction; and (iv) accordingly, Civitas Resources' business and/or financial prospects, as well as its operational capabilities, were overstated. The Civitas Resources class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 24, 2025, Civitas Resources announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2024, reporting revenue of $1.29 billion, missing consensus estimates by $3.44 million, and non-GAAP earnings per share of $1.78 for the quarter, missing consensus estimates by $0.21 per share. According to the complaint, also on February 24, 2025, Civitas Resources revealed several 2025 outlook highlights, including '[d]elivering oil production between 150 and 155 thousand barrels per day ('MBbl/d') on average,' – a year-over-year decline of approximately 4% –'[e]xpanding [its] Permian Basin position with a $300 million bolt-on transaction that adds 19,000 net acres and approximately 130 future development locations in the Midland Basin,' and '[e]xecuting on [a] new divestment target of $300 million' meant to offset the foregoing transaction. Civitas Resources explained that '[a]s compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, lower volumes are primarily driven by the DJ Basin, due to natural declines following peak production in the fourth quarter, a low TIL count exiting 2024 and in the first quarter of 2025,' as well as severe winter weather and unplanned third-party processing downtime in the first quarter, the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit alleges. Civitas Resources additionally announced a 10% reduction in its workforce across all levels and the termination of its Chief Operating Officer and Chief Transformation Officer, according to the complaint. On this news, the price of Civitas Resources stock fell more than 18%, according to the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Civitas Resources securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLPJ.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101800-449-4900info@
