NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 8, 2019 / The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
CannTrust Holdings Inc. (CTST)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/canntrust-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3394&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 9, 2019
Class Period: November 14, 2018 to July 12, 2019
According to filed complaints, CannTrust Holdings Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was growing cannabis in its Pelham greenhouse while applications for regulatory approval were still pending; (2) the Company’s Pelham greenhouse did not comply with certain regulations; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to face an inventory hold by Health Canada until the Pelham facility becomes compliant with applicable regulations; (4) as a result, the Company’s customers would face shortages and would likely seek product from CannTrust’s competitors; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Reckitt Benckiser Group plc (RBGLY)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/reckitt-benckiser-group-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=3394&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2019
Class Period: On behalf of all purchasers of Reckitt American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) from July 28, 2014 through April 9, 2019
Allegations against RBGLY include that: (a) defendants had engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the sales of Suboxone Film by more than $3 billion by falsely touting the drug’s purportedly superior efficacy and safety as compared to tablets; (b) contrary to defendants’ public statements, the FDA and internal Company documents had concluded that Suboxone Film posed a potentially greater risk of abuse and child endangerment than other available treatments; (c) defendants had fabricated a safety scare involving Suboxone Tablets in order to unlawfully delay and prevent generic competition; (d) defendants had engaged in a massive marketing campaign that had misrepresented the purported benefits of Suboxone Film as compared to Suboxone Tablets to doctors, healthcare providers, government regulators and investors; (e) defendants had encouraged Suboxone sales through medical providers that they knew were overprescribing the drug, facilitating the drug’s abuse and/or prescribing it in a careless and clinically unwarranted manner, often to hundreds of individuals at a time; (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above, Reckitt’s revenues, net income an d earnings were artificially inflated and the product of illicit business practices; and (g) as a result of (a)-(f) above, Reckitt and Reckitt Pharma were exposed to extraordinary undisclosed legal and reputational risks that could result in billions of dollars in fines, lost business and legal judgments or other monetary penalties.
Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/cardinal-health-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3394&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 30, 2019
Class Period: March 2, 2015 to May 2, 2018
Allegations against CAH include that: 1) following Cardinal's acquisition of Cordis, the RFID [radio-frequency identification] inventory tracking technology and advanced supply chain solutions that Defendants told investors the Company would to use to improve Cordis’s performance were never implemented across Cordis; 2) Cordis’s antiquated and ineffective global supply chain was causing operational and inventory problems at Cordis; 3) as a result, Cordis manufactured and accumulated excessive amounts of cardiovascular product inventories, which sat on the shelf and became unsellable and/or expired; 4) the Company materially overstated Cordis’s inventory balances; 5) Cordis was not “performing well” and its integration was not “on track,” “going incredibly well” or “largely on plan"; and 6) to correct Cordis’s deficiencies, the Company would have to make substantial investments in Cordis’s IT and supporting infrastructure, thereby incurring significant Selling, General and Administrative Expenses charges beyond the levels internally budgeted or projected by Cardinal and diminishing operating earnings.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email firstname.lastname@example.org or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
New York, NY 10002
SOURCE: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong
View source version on accesswire.com: