no later than July 12, 2021
, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of
Aterian, Inc.
On May 4, 2021, Culper Research published a scathing report, entitled Aterian (ATER): Bought from Felons & Fraudsters, Sold to You. The research report accused the company of associating and having ties to convicted criminals, overhyping its AIMEE platform, and using garbage acquisitions to conceal its ill-conceived core business. Culper Research also stated that Aterian has been largely unsuccessful in convincing other Amazon sellers to pay for its AIMEE AI platform, and at least 5 former employees and a former customer have expressed doubts regarding AIMEE s legitimacy.
Share this article
Share this article
NEW YORK, July 1, 2021 /PRNewswire/ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ( Virgin Galactic or the Company ) (NYSE: SPCE) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-03070, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Virgin Galactic securities between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 2021, both dates inclusive (the Class Period ), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act ) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
Share this article
Share this article
NEW YORK, July 1, 2021 /PRNewswire/ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Point Capital Inc. ( Home Point or the Company ) (NASDAQ: HMPT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and docketed under 21-cv-11457, is on behalf of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company s January 29, 2021, initial public offering (the IPO or Offering ), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act ) (the Class ). The claims in this action arise from Home Point s materially misleading Offering Documents (defined below) issued in connection with the IPO.
Share this article
Share this article
NEW YORK, July 1, 2021 /PRNewswire/ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ( AcelRx or the Company ) (NASDAQ: ACRX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-04353, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx securities between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, both dates inclusive (the Class Period ), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act ) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The United States District Court of the District of Minnesota held that participants did not have standing to sue a third party administrator ( TPA ) over its practice of cross-plan offsetting. Cross-plan offsetting is a practice, used by some claims administrators, of using the assets of one health plan to recoup overpayments made to a healthcare provider by a different plan. Here, a class of plan participants alleged that this administrative practice violates the TPA’s duty of loyalty as well as ERISA s prohibitions on self-dealing, representing both sides in a transaction, and transacting with a party in interest. However, the court did not address the substance of these claims because it held that the participants lacked standing. To have standing a plaintiff must be able to clearly trace a redressable injury to a defendant’s conduct. The court reasoned that here, if the TPA breached these fiduciary duties,