Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against Savara Inc. and Certain Officers – SVRA

NEW YORK, Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Savara Inc. (“Savara” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: SVRA) and certain officers.   The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 25-cv-05147, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Savara securities between March 7, 2024 and May 23, 2025, 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Savara securities during the Class Period, you have until November 7, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.   

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

                Savara is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on rare respiratory diseases.  The Company’s lead product candidate is MOLBREEVI (also referred to as “molgramostim”), an inhaled granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.  MOLBREEVI is in a Phase 3 IMPALA-2 pivotal clinical trial for the treatment of autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (“aPAP”), a chronic and debilitating rare lung disease characterized by the abnormal build-up of surfactant in the alveoli of the lungs.  Savara has consistently represented that, based on investments in MOLBREEVI and its purported “track record of strong fiscal discipline,” the Company is “sufficiently capitalized” as early as through 2026 and as late as into the second half of 2027.

In December 2024, Savara began a rolling submission of a Biologics License Application (“BLA”)—i.e., a submission requesting approval to distribute a biologic product across state lines—to the United States (“U.S.”) Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for MOLBREEVI for the potential treatment of aPAP (the “MOLBREEVI BLA”).  In a press release announcing the submission, the Company touted that, “[g]iven the positive results of the pivotal, Phase 3 IMPALA-2 trial, we believe MOLBREEVI demonstrates a favorable benefit-risk profile and could fundamentally change the way aPAP is treated,” and that “[i]nitiation of the [MOLBREEVI] BLA is an important milestone in potentially addressing the unmet need in aPAP, for which there are no approved medicines in the U.S. and Europe.”  Moreover, Savara represented that it “expect[ed] to complete the submission of the rolling [MOLBREEVI] BLA by the end of [the first quarter of] 2025.”

To obtain FDA approval of the MOLBREEVI BLA, Savara must submit, among other things, information regarding MOLBREEVI’s chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (“CMC”).  Specifically, the CMC section of a BLA must provide a detailed account of a product’s manufacturing process—including process validation runs, stability testing, and analytical method validation—and detailed descriptions of facilities, equipment, and quality control procedures.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the MOLBREEVI BLA lacked sufficient information regarding MOLBREEVI’s chemistry, manufacturing, and/or controls; (ii) accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the MOLBREEVI BLA in its current form; (iii) the foregoing made it unlikely that Savara would complete its submission of the MOLBREEVI BLA within the timeframe it had represented to investors; (iv) the delay in MOLBREEVI’s regulatory approval increased the likelihood that the Company would need to raise additional capital; and (v) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 27, 2025, Savara issued a press release “announc[ing] that the Company received [a refusal to file] letter from the FDA for the [MOLBREEVI BLA] as a therapy to treat patients with [aPap].”  Specifically, Savara revealed that “[u]pon preliminary review, the FDA determined that the [MOLBREEVI BLA] was not sufficiently complete to permit substantive review and requested additional data related to Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC).”

Market analysts were quick to comment on the Company’s announcement.  For example, on May 27, 2025, Guggenheim published a report (the “Guggenheim Report”) revising its price target for Savara to $8.00, down from the previous $9.00.  Guggenheim stated that it “do[es] not expect Savara to be profitable on a continuing basis until 2028 and expect[s] the company may raise additional capital, potentially through a secondary stock offering that could dilute the holdings of current investors.”  In addition, the Guggenheim Report noted that the “CMC Delay Could Lead to Change in Molbreevi Manufacturing Strategy,” predicting a delayed market launch sometime in early 2027, a year later than initially expected.

On this news, Savara’s stock price fell $0.90 per share, or 31.69%, to close at $1.94 per share on May 27, 2025.

Then, after the end of the Class Period, on August 13, 2025, Savara issued a press release announcing the Company’s financial results for the second quarter of 2025.  Among other things, the press release revealed that, contrary to the Company’s prior representations that it would complete its rolling submission of the MOLBREEVI BLA in the first quarter of 2025, Savara now “plan[s] to resubmit the [MOLBREEVI] BLA in December [2025].”

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. 

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. 

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against Dow Inc. and Certain Officers – DOW

NEW YORK, Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Dow Inc.  (“Dow” or the “Company”) (NYSE: DOW) and certain officers.   The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, and docketed under 25-cv-12744, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Dow securities between January 30, 2025 and July 23, 2025, 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Dow securities during the Class Period, you have until October 28, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.   

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 Dow is an American materials science company, serving customers in the packaging, infrastructure, mobility, and consumer applications industries.  Dow conducts its worldwide operations through six global businesses organized into three operating segments: (i) Packaging & Specialty Plastics, (ii) Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure, and (iii) Performance Materials & Coatings.

Historically, Dow has touted its “industry-leading dividend,” which is of particular importance to investors.  On conference calls with investors and analysts, Dow’s Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Jim Fitterling (“Fitterling”), has variously stated that the Company’s “dividend is a key element of our investment thesis,” and that “north of 65% of our owners count on that dividend.”

Notwithstanding an ongoing slump in the materials science industry, as well as the recent onset of tariff-related market uncertainties, at all relevant times, Defendants represented that Dow was well positioned to weather macroeconomic and tariff-related headwinds while maintaining sufficient levels of financial flexibility to support the Company’s lucrative dividend.  Specifically, Defendants cited various purported strengths and advantages unique to Dow in its industry, including, inter alia, the Company’s purported “differentiated portfolio,” “cost-advantaged footprint,” and “industry-leading flexibility to navigate global trade dynamics.”

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Dow’s business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Dow’s ability to mitigate macroeconomic and tariff-related headwinds, as well as to maintain the financial flexibility needed to support its lucrative dividend, was overstated; (ii) the true scope and severity of the foregoing headwinds’ negative impacts on Dow’s business and financial condition was understated, particularly with respect to competitive and pricing pressures, softening global sales and demand for the Company’s products, and an oversupply of products in the Company’s global markets; and (iii) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 23, 2025, BMO Capital downgraded its recommendation on Dow to “Underperform” from “Market Perform” while also cutting its price target on the Company’s stock to $22.00 per share from $29.00 per share, citing sustained weakness across key end markets and mounting pressure on the Company’s dividend.

On this news, Dow’s stock price fell $0.89 per share, or 3.21%, to close at $26.87 per share on June 23, 2025.

Then, on July 24, 2025, Dow issued a press release reporting its financial results for the second quarter of 2025.  Therein, Dow reported a non-GAAP loss per share of $0.42, significantly larger than the approximate $0.17 to $0.18 per share loss expected by analysts.  Dow also reported net sales of $10.1 billion, representing a 7.3% year-over-year decline and missing consensus estimates by $130 million, “reflecting declines in all operating segments.”  The Company further reported, inter alia, that “[s]equentially, net sales were down 3%, as seasonally higher demand in Performance Materials & Coatings was more than offset by declines across the other operating segments.”  Defendant Fitterling blamed these disappointing results on “the lower-for-longer earnings environment that our industry is facing, amplified by recent trade and tariff uncertainties,” while providing a dour outlook marked by “signs of oversupply from newer market entrants who are exporting to various regions at anti-competitive economics.”

In a separate press release issued the same day, Dow revealed that it was cutting its dividend in half, from $0.70 per share to only $0.35 per share, citing the need for “financial flexibility amidst a persistently challenging macroeconomic environment.”

Following these disclosures, Dow’s stock price fell $5.30 per share, or 17.45%, to close at $25.07 per share on July 24, 2025.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. 

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. 

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against Nutex Health Inc. and Certain Officers – NUTX

NEW YORK, Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutex Health Inc. (“Nutex” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: NUTX) and certain officers.   The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and docketed under 25-cv- 03999, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Nutex securities between August 8, 2024 and August 14, 2025, 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Nutex securities during the Class Period, you have until October 21, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. 

[Click here for information about joining the class action] 

Nutex is a physician-led, healthcare services and operations company that began publicly trading via a reverse merger in April 2022.  The Company operates through three divisions: a hospital division comprised of 24 hospital facilities in 11 states, a population health management division, and real estate.  Nutex generally operates as an out-of-‎network provider and generates revenue, in part, from contracts with patients and, in most cases, a third-party payor such as commercial insurance, workers compensation insurance or, in limited cases, Medicare or Medicaid.  According to Nutex, on average, greater than 90% of its net patient service revenue is paid by third-party payors.

Prior to 2022, if a patient with health insurance received care from an out-of-network provider, even unknowingly, the patient’s health plan might not have covered the entire out-of-network cost, leaving the patient with higher costs than if the care had come from an in-network provider.  In addition to any out-of-network cost sharing the patient might have owed, the out-of-network provider could bill the patient for the difference between the billed charge and the amount the patient’s health plan paid, unless banned by state law—a practice called “balance billing”.  An unexpected balance bill from an out-of-network provider is frequently referred to as a “surprise bill”.

In December 2020, to curb surprise out-of-network billing, Congress enacted the No Surprises Act (“NSA”).  The NSA, which took effect January 1, 2022, requires private health plans to cover out-of-network claims and apply in-network cost sharing, and prohibits doctors, hospitals, and other covered providers from billing patients more than the in-network cost sharing amount for surprise medical bills.  In addition, the NSA established an independent dispute resolution (“IDR”) process to determine out-of-network payment amounts between health plans and providers when open negotiations fail to result in an agreed-upon payment amount.

In the IDR process, the provider and health plan each submit a proposed payment amount and ‎‎additional information supporting their payment offers to an arbitrator, a certified IDR entity.  The arbitrator must select one of the two proposed payment amounts, taking into ‎account the ‎‎“qualifying payment amount” (“QPA”)—the median contract rate for like specialties in the same geographical market—and additional circumstances including, among other things, the level of training, outcomes ‎‎measurements of the facility, the acuity of the individual treated, and the case mix and scope of services of the ‎facility ‎providing the service.

Initially, as an out-of-network provider, Nutex’s business suffered after the NSA went into effect.  Specifically, because cost sharing under the statute is generally based on the median in-network rate a health plan pays for a service, the NSA prevented Nutex from charging patients higher prices for its services through out-of-network billing.  Indeed, in March 2023, Nutex reported that “[s]ince the NSA became effective [. . .] our average payment by insurers of patient claims for emergency services has declined by approximately 30% including as much as a 37% reduction for physician services.”  The Company stated that, “[i]n our experience, insurers often initially pay amounts lower than the QPA without regard for other information relevant to the claim. This requires us to make appeals using the IDR process.” 

In response, in July 2024, the Company engaged with HaloMD, a “third-party IDR vendor,” to “assist in the recovery of certain out of network claims” in the IDR process.  While Nutex did not disclose the identity of its third-party IDR vendor to investors at that time, the Company shortly thereafter began to tout the success of its “arbitration strategy” in increasing its revenues.  For example, in August 2024, Nutex stated that it “believe[s] [] there is a lot of potential incremental value and revenue to be gained from arbitration” and “[i]n recent articles and public data, we are seeing that providers are prevailing 70% to 80% of the time in arbitration.”  Then, in March 2025, announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2024 results, Nutex reported that “[t]otal revenue increased $232.3 million to $479.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2024” and that “[t]he arbitration process resulted in approximately $169.7 million more in revenue in 2024 than in 2023, which amounted to approximately 73.1% of the $232.3 million revenue increase.”

At all relevant times, the Company has identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting.  Specifically, Nutex has acknowledged that it had “[i]neffective design, implementation, and operation controls over logical access, program change management, and vendor management controls,” that “[b]usiness process controls across all financial reporting processes were not effectively designed and implemented to properly address the risk of material misstatement, including controls without proper segregation of duties between preparer and reviewer and key management review controls,” and “[i]neffective design and implementation of controls over the completeness and accuracy of information included in key spreadsheets supporting the financial statements.”  However, Nutex has consistently represented that it has “started the process of designing and implementing effective internal control measures to remediate the reported material weaknesses.”

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HaloMD was achieving lucrative arbitration results for Nutex by engaging in a coordinated scheme to defraud insurance companies; (ii) as a result, to the extent that they were the product of fraudulent conduct, revenues attributable to the Company’s engagement with HaloMD in the IDR process were unsustainable; (iii) in addition, the Company overstated the extent to which it had remediated, and/or its ability to remediate, the material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (iv) as a result, the Company was unable to effectively account for the treatment of certain of its stock based compensation obligations; (v) as a result, Nutex improperly calculated these stock based compensation obligations as equity rather than liabilities; (vi) the foregoing increased the risk that the Company would be unable to timely file certain financial reports with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (vii) accordingly, Nutex’s business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (viii) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 22, 2025, Blue Orca Capital (“Blue Orca”) issued a short report on Nutex (the “Blue Orca Report” or the “Report”).  The Blue Orca Report alleged, among other things, that “HaloMD achieved dramatically lucrative results for clients like Nutex by engaging in a coordinated fraudulent scheme to steal millions of dollars from insurance companies on behalf of and in conjunction with its healthcare billing clients.” 

Specifically, Blue Orca referenced three recent “[b]ombshell [l]awsuits” filed against HaloMD.  The lawsuits, brought variously by Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia, Inc., Community Insurance Company d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company and Blue Cross of California d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross, allege that HaloMD violated various federal and state laws by submitting false attestations of eligibility and initiating massive volumes of IDR disputes.

As summarized by Blue Orca, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits accused HaloMD and its clients of “flooding the arbitration system with thousands of claims that they knew at the time of submission to be ineligible” and alleging that HaloMD was able to garner improper payments by “falsely attesting to the eligibility of claims and [. . .] improperly inflating payment offers that far exceeded the amounts to which providers should have been entitled.”  Accordingly, Blue Orca concluded that “it may just be a matter of time before another suit is filed against HaloMD, this time including Nutex,” and “[o]nce Nutex can no longer use the NSA arbitration system to receive unsustainably high reimbursement rates, our suspicion is that Nutex will return to penny stock status.”

Following publication of the Blue Orca Report, Nutex’s stock price fell $11.18 per share, or 10.05%, to close at $100.01 per share on July 22, 2025.

On July 24, 2025, Nutex issued a press release responding to the Blue Orca Report, stating that it “strongly disagrees with the allegations in the report” and that it “expects to provide related updates in its upcoming earnings release and Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2025 due on or before August 14, 2025.”

However, after the market closed on August 14, 2025, Nutex announced that it would “delay filing its Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2025”, citing “non-cash accounting adjustments related to the treatment of stock-based compensation obligations for certain under-construction and ramping hospitals, as disclosed in previous filings.”

When Nutex failed to rebut the allegations of the Blue Orca Report, the Company’s stock price fell $18.22 per share, or 16.39%, to close at $92.91 per share on August 15, 2025.

After the end of the Class Period, on August 21, 2025, Nutex filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC which, among other things, contained a Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard and stated that the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors concluded that certain of the Company’s previously issued financial statements “treated non-cash obligations related to under-construction and ramping hospitals as equity rather than liabilities and should be restated.”  This filing also purported to address the Blue Orca Report.  However, Nutex merely provided a generalized description of the arbitration process under the NSA and the Company’s own claims process, acknowledged that Nutex had engaged HaloMD to assist in the IDR process, and discussed two of the three recent lawsuits filed against HaloMD, noting that the Company had not been named as a Defendant.  As such, Nutex’s filing did not in fact meaningfully rebut any of the allegations contained in the Blue Orca Report.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. and Certain Officers – UNCY

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. (“Unicycive” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: UNCY) and certain officers.   The class action, filed in the United States District Court Northern District of California, and docketed under 25-cv-06923, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Unicycive securities between March 29, 2024 and June 27, 2025, 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.

If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Unicycive securities during the Class Period, you have until October 14, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.   

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

Unicycive is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that identifies, develops, and commercializes therapies to address unmet medical needs in the U.S.  The Company is developing, among other therapies, oxylanthanum carbonate (“OLC”), a purported next-generation phosphate binder for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (“CKD”) patients on dialysis. 

At all relevant times, Defendants consistently touted the prospects of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for OLC for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients on dialysis (the “OLC NDA”), assuring investors and analysts of the Company’s readiness and ability to satisfy the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”), inter alia,  manufacturing compliance requirements.

In September 2024, Unicycive announced that it had submitted the OLC NDA to the FDA.

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, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Unicycive’s readiness and ability to satisfy the FDA’s manufacturing compliance requirements was overstated; (ii) the OLC NDA’s regulatory prospects were likewise overstated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 10, 2025, Unicycive issued a press release “announc[ing] an update on its [NDA] for [OLC] to treat hyperphosphatemia in patients with [CKD] on dialysis.”  Therein, the Company disclosed that the FDA “had identified deficiencies in cGMP [current good manufacturing practice] compliance at a third-party manufacturing vendor”—specifically, a third-party subcontractor of Unicycive’s contract development and manufacturing organization (“CDMO”)—“following an FDA inspection” and that, “given the identified deficiencies, any label discussions between the FDA and the Company are precluded.”

On this news, Unicycive’s stock price fell $3.68 per share, or 40.89%, to close at $5.32 per share on June 10, 2025.

Then, on June 30, 2025, Unicycive issued a press release announcing that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) for the OLC NDA, citing the previously identified cGMP deficiencies at the third-party subcontractor of its CDMO.

On this news, Unicycive’s stock price fell $2.03 per share, or 29.85%, to close at $4.77 per share on June 30, 2025.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. 

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against WM Technology, Inc. - MAPS

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against WM Technology, Inc. (“WM” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: MAPS).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

 

The class action concerns whether WM and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

 

You have until December 16, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired WM securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.         

. 

 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

On August 9, 2022, WM disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that its board of directors had received an internal complaint relating to “the calculation, definition, and reporting of [its] MAUs [monthly active users]”, a self-described key operating metric for the Company.  Specifically, WM reported that “growth of our monthly active users, reported as MAUs, has been driven by the purchase of pop-under advertisements,” but that “internal data suggests that the vast majority of users who are directed . . . via pop-under advertisements close the site without clicking on any links.” 

 

On this news, WM’s stock price fell $0.87 per share, or 25.14%, to close at $2.59 per share on August 10, 2022. 

 

Then, on September 24, 2024, the SEC issued a litigation release (the “Release”) in which it announced that it had “charged [WM], its former CEO, Christopher Beals, and its former CFO, Arden Lee, for making negligent representations in WM Technology’s public reporting of [MAUs] for WM Technology’s online cannabis marketplace.”  The Release also noted that the SEC had instituted a related settled administrative proceeding against WM Technology” and that the Company had “agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,500,00.” 

 

On this news, WM’s stock price fell $0.012 per share, or 1.29%, to close at $0.92 per share on September 25, 2024.

 

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. – EVLV

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. (“Evolv” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: EVLV).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

 

The class action concerns whether Evolv and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

 

You have until December 31, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Evolv securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.         

 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]   

 

On October 25, 2024, Evolv issued a press release “announc[ing] that shareholders and others should not rely upon certain of the Company’s previously issued financial statements and that it will delay filing its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2024.  The press release disclosed “an internal investigation that is focused on the Company’s sales practices, including whether certain sales of products and subscriptions to channel partners and end users were subject to extra-contractual terms and conditions that impacted revenue recognition and other metrics, and if so, when senior Company personnel became aware of these issues” and “determined that the accounting for certain sales transactions was inaccurate and that, among other things, revenue was prematurely or incorrectly recognized in connection with financial statements prepared for the periods between the second quarter of 2022 and the second quarter of 2024.” 

 

On this news, Evolv’s stock price fell $1.63 per share, or 39.76%, to close at $2.47 per share on October 25, 2024. 

 

Then, on October 31, 2024, Evolv announced the termination of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Peter George, “effective immediately.”  The Company announced that Michael Ellenbogen, Evolv’s Chief Innovation Officer will serve in an interim role until a successor is appointed.

 

 On this news, Evolv’s stock price fell $0.19 per share, or 8.12%, to close at $2.15 per share on October 31, 2024.

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against Flux Power Holdings, Inc. - FLUX

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (“Flux” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: FLUX).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

The class action concerns whether Flux and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

You have until December 31, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Flux securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.         

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

On September 5, 2024, in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Flux disclosed that its Board of Directors had “concluded that the previously issued audited consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 and the unaudited consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarters ended September 30, 2023, December 31, 2023, and March 31, 2024 (collectively, the ‘Prior Financial Statements’), which were filed with the [SEC] on September 21, 2023, November 9, 2023, February 8, 2024 and May 13, 2024, respectively, should no longer be relied upon because of errors in such financial statements relating to the improper accounting for inventory and a restatement should be undertaken.  During the Company’s preparation of financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2024, it became aware that (i) approximately $1.2 million of excess and obsolete inventory, primarily as a result of a change in battery cells from a new supplier, was not properly reserved or written-off in earlier periods resulting in an overstatement of inventory, and (ii) certain loaner service packs were improperly accounted for as finished goods inventory as of June 30, 2023 resulting in an overstatement of inventory of approximately $0.5 million.  As a result, the Company concluded that the errors resulted in (i) an overstatement of inventory, current assets, total assets and accumulated deficit on its balance sheet, and (ii) an understatement of cost of sales and net loss, and overstatement of gross profit on its statement of operations in the Prior Financial Statements.  The Company is also evaluating the impact that improper accounting for inventory had on other historical financial statements for previous quarterly and fiscal periods which also could include the audited consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, as well as the quarterly unaudited consolidated financial statements within the years ended June 30, 2022, 2021 and 2020.” 

 

On this news, Flux’s stock price fell $0.17 per share, or 5.36%, to close at $3.00 per share on September 6, 2024.  

 

Then, on September 30, 2024, Flux filed with the SEC a notification of late filing, stating that it would be “unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period year ended June 30, 2024 . . . within the prescribed time period without unreasonable effort or expense.” 

 

On this news, Flux’s stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 5.9%, to close at $2.86 on October 1, 2024.

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against United Parcel Service, Inc. - UPS

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS” or the “Company”) (NYSE: UPS).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

The class action concerns whether UPS and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

You have until December 9, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired UPS securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.         

 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

On July 23, 2024, UPS announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2024, provided lower-than-expected guidance for the third quarter, and reduced its margin guidance for the full fiscal year 2024.   The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance to a shift in “U.S. volume mix both in terms of products and customer segmentation . . . toward value products.” 

 

On this news, UPS’s stock price fell $17.50 per share, or 12.05%, to close at $127.68 per share on July 23, 2024.

Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of Mercer International Inc. - MERC

Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of  Mercer International Inc. (“Mercer” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: MERC).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, ext. 7980.

 

The investigation concerns whether Mercer and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. 

 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

On October 16, 2024, Mercer issued a press release announcing its preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2024.  In the press release, Mercer stated that “our operating results for the quarter were constrained due to the occurrence of several unrelated events that impacted pulp production, including the previously announced unscheduled downtime of 23 days (approximately 35,500 ADMTs [air-dried metric tons]) at our Mercer Peace River mill, a slower than normal maintenance start-up and other production upsets at our Stendal Mill (approximately 26,500 ADMTs) and isolated mechanical incidents at our Celgar mill (approximately 9,200 ADMTs).” 

 

On this news, Mercer’s stock price fell $0.28 per share, or 3.99%, to close at $6.73 per share on October 17, 2024.

Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of Silvaco Group, Inc. - SVCO

Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of  Silvaco Group, Inc. (“Silvaco” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: SVCO).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, ext. 7980.

 

The investigation concerns whether Silvaco and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. 

 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

On or around May 8, 2024, Silvaco conducted its initial public offering (“IPO”) of 6 million shares priced at $19.00 per share. 

 

Then, on October 15, 2024, Silvaco issued a press release announcing preliminary unaudited revenue results for the third quarter of 2024 and updated its outlook for the full year 2024.  Among other items, Silvaco lowered its full year revenue guidance to a range of $60 million to $63 million, compared to previous guidance of $63 million to $66 million, and lowered its year-over-year growth projection to a range of 10% to 16%, compared to previous guidance of 16% to 22%. 

On this news, Silvaco’s stock price fell $3.61 per share, or 32.64%, to lose at $7.45 per share on October 16, 2024.

Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. - RYAM

Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of  Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. (“Rayonier” or the “Company”) (NYSE: RYAM).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, ext. 7980.

 

The investigation concerns whether Rayonier and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. 

 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

On October 14, 2024, Rayonier issued a press release “report[ing] that an isolated fire occurred at its Jesup, Georgia facility on October 11 at approximately 6 p.m. during planned maintenance activity[,]” advising that “[w]hile the plant’s C line operations have resumed, the A and B lines will remain offline for repairs with a target start date the week of October 28.  Rayonier stated that “[w]hile the Company continues to assess the financial cost of the incident, the EBITDA impact is currently expected to be in the range of $15 to $20 million, subject to any potential insurance recovery.” 

 

On this news, Rayonier’s stock price fell $0.81 per share, or 9.05%, to close at $8.14 per share on October 14, 2024.

Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of JFrog Ltd. - FROG

Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of  JFrog Ltd. (“JFrog” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: FROG).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, ext. 7980.

 

The investigation concerns whether JFrog and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. 

 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

               

On August 7, 2024, JFrog released its second quarter 2024 financial results and lowered its fiscal year 2024 guidance, stating that it “expect[s] cloud revenue growth to slow relative to prior expectations.” 

 

On this news, JFrog’s stock price fell $9.37 per share, or 27.5%, to close at $34.05 per share on August 7, 2024.

Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of Humana Inc. - HUM

Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of  Humana Inc. (“Humana” or the “Company”) (NYSE: HUM).  Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, ext. 7980.

 

The investigation concerns whether Humana and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. 

 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

On October 2, 2024, Humana disclosed that it has “approximately 1.6 million, or 25%, of its members currently enrolled in plans rated 4 stars and above for 2025, a reduction from 94% in 2024.” 

 

On this news, Humana’s stock price fell $32.98 per share, or 11.8%, to close at $246.47 per share on October 2, 2024.

 

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com.

 

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.   

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against The Toronto-Dominion Bank - TD

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“TD Bank” or the “Company”) (NYSE: TD).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

The class action concerns whether TD Bank and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

You have until December 23, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired TD Bank securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.         

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

On October 10, 2024, TD Bank disclosed that it had pleaded guilty and agreed to pay over $3 billion in penalties to resolve investigations by U.S. authorities into violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and money laundering.  The resolution of the investigations also included an asset cap preventing TD Bank’s U.S. subsidiaries from collectively exceeding $434 billion in assets and subjects TD Bank to more stringent approval processes for its products, services, and market rollouts.  In a corresponding press release, the U.S. Department of Justice described TD Bank as “the largest bank in U.S. history to plead guilty to Bank Secrecy Act program failures, and the first US bank in history to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering.” 

 

On this news, TD Bank’s stock price fell $4.07 per share, or 6.41%, to close at $59.44 per share on October 10, 2024.

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in TMC the metals company Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadlines – TMC

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against TMC the metals company Inc.  (“TMC” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: TMC) and certain officers.   The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District Of California, and docketed under 24-cv-09684 is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired TMC securities between May 12, 2023 and March 25, 2024, 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.

 

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired TMC securities during the Class Period, you have until January 7, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. 

  

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

            TMC is a deep-sea minerals exploration company focused on the collection, processing, and refining of polymetallic nodules.

 

            In February 2023, TMC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (“NORI”), entered into a strategic partnership with Low Carbon Royalties Inc. (“LCR”) (the “LCR Partnership”).  In a press release discussing the terms of the LCR Partnership, TMC stated, in relevant part, that “[t]he Company agreed with LCR to a purchase and sale agreement whereby LCR acquired a 2.0% gross overriding royalty on [TMC’s] NORI project area in the Clarion Clipperton Zone of the Pacific Ocean” and, “[i]n consideration . . ., the Company received $5,000,000 cash and an initial 35.0% equity interest in LCR.”

 

            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, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) TMC maintained deficient internal controls over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Company inaccurately classified the sale of future revenue attributable to the LCR Partnership as deferred income rather than debt; (iii) the foregoing misclassification, when it became known, would require TMC to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements; and (iv) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

 

            On March 25, 2024, TMC disclosed in a filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that the Company’s financial statements for the first three quarters of 2023 “should be restated and, accordingly, should no longer be relied upon”, citing the “re-evaluat[ion of] whether the offsetting entry to the proceeds it received from LCR should be classified as debt or deferred income.”  Further, TMC explained that, “[a]s the transaction with LCR was considered an equity investment rather than a sale transaction, the sale of future revenue will be reclassified as Royalty liability” per appropriate accounting standards. 

 

            On this news, TMC’s stock price fell $0.205 per share, or 13.23%, to close at $1.345 per share on March 26, 2024.

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against Iris Energy Limited - IREN

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Iris Energy Limited (“Iris Energy” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: IREN).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

The class action concerns whether Iris Energy and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

You have until December 6, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Iris Energy securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.         

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

On July 11, 2024, Culper Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Iris “talks a big game of its [high performance computing (‘HPC’)] plans but ultimately seems entirely disinterested in actually doing what it takes to compete in the space,” and that the Company “is a painfully transparent stock promotion that will unravel as investors realize [its] HPC claims are nonsense and [it] remains a cash guzzling machine.”  The Culper Research report further states that the Company’s facilities, having been built for BTC mining, “are ill-equipped for HPC workloads without billions in additional costs.” 

 

On this news, Iris’s stock price fell $1.70 per share, or 13.2%, to close at $11.20 per share on July 11, 2024.

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against EngageSmart, Inc. – ESMT

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against EngageSmart, Inc. (“EngageSmart” or the “Company”) (NYSE: ESMT).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

 

The class action concerns alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the January 2024 take-private acquisition of the Company (the “Merger”) by Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC and its affiliates.  Specifically, a complaint has been filed alleging that the Merger was driven by and dominated by controlling shareholder General Atlantic, L.P. and its affiliates and assisted by conflicted financial and legal advisors retained by the special committee purported established to evaluate the merger and EngageSmart’s board of directors.  The complaint specifically alleges that these conflicts wholly tainted the merger process, resulting in a conflicted and unfair sales process that prevented Class Members from making an informed vote on the Merger.

 

You have until December 9, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who (1) purchased or otherwise acquired EngageSmart common stock between October 23, 2023 and January 26, 2024, or (2) held EngageSmart common stock as of the December 21, 2023 record date for the Merger.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.         

 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]   

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Domino’s Pizza, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadlines – DPZ

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Domino’s Pizza, Inc. (“Domino’s” or the “Company”) (NYSE: DPZ) and certain officers.   The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and docketed under 24-cv-12477, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Domino’s securities between December 7, 2023 and July 17, 2024, 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.

 

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Domino’s securities during the Class Period, you have until November 19, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. 

 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

 

Domino’s, through its subsidiaries, operates as a global pizza company in three segments: U.S. Stores, International Franchise, and Supply Chain.  Domino’s offers pizzas and other food products under the Domino’s brand name through Company-owned and franchised stores.  The Company’s largest “master franchisee”—i.e., a franchisee that is charged with developing a geographical area and may profit by sub-franchising and selling food and equipment to those sub-franchisees—is Domino’s Pizza Enterprises (“DPE”).  As of December 31, 2023, DPE operated 3,840 stores in 12 international markets, accounting for approximately 28% of the Company’s international store count and 19% of its global store count. 

 

In December 2023, Domino’s hosted its 2023 Investor Day, during which Defendants provided new long-term guidance of “1,100+” annual global net store growth for the years 2024 to 2028.

 

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) DPE, the Company’s largest master franchisee, was experiencing significant challenges with respect to both new store openings and closures of existing stores; (ii) as a result, Domino’s was unlikely to meet its own previously issued long-term guidance for annual global net store growth; (iii) accordingly, Domino’s business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

 

On July 18, 2024, Domino’s issued a press release announcing its Q2 2024 financial results.  Among other items, Domino’s disclosed that it “expects it will fall 175 to 275 stores below its 2024 goal of 925+ net stores in international primarily as a result of challenges in both openings and closures being faced by Domino’s Pizza Enterprises (‘DPE’), one of its master franchisees.”  Accordingly, “[t]he Company is temporarily suspending its guidance metric of 1,100+ global net stores until the full effect of DPE’s store opens and closures on international net store growth are known.”  On an earnings call held that same day to discuss the Company’s Q2 2024 results (the “Q2 2024 Earnings Call”), the Company’s Chief Financial Officer Defendant Sandeep Reddy further revealed that the long-term guidance announced at the 2023 Investor Day did not accurately reflect the extent of DPE’s challenges with respect to new store openings and closures of existing stores.

 

On this news, Domino’s stock price fell $64.23 per share, or 13.57%, to close at $409.04 per share on July 18, 2024.