Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC Reminds Investors Class Actions Have Been Filed Against PolarityTE, Hyzon Motors, Nano-X and Eargo and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm


NEW YORK, Oct. 19, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) – Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC, a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been filed on behalf of shareholders of PolarityTE, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTE), Hyzon Motors, Inc. (NASDAQ: HYZN), Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX) and Eargo, Inc. (NASDAQ: EAR). Shareholders have until the deadlines below to request the court to act as principal plaintiff. Additional information on each case can be found at the link provided.

PolarityTE, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTE)

Class period: April 30, 2020 to August 23, 2021

Lead Applicant Deadline: November 23, 2021

On April 30, 2020, PolarityTE issued a press release announcing that the company has decided to pursue a project of submitting an Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”) and subsequently a biologic license application to the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). ) for SkinTE.

On July 23, 2021, PolarityTE submitted an IND to the FDA requesting authorization to begin a clinical trial to evaluate SkinTE for the proposed indication of treatment of chronic skin ulcers (the “SkinTE IND”).

On August 24, 2021, PolarityTE issued a press release “provid[ing] an update regarding correspondence from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding its New Drug Investigation (IND) submission for SkinTE® with a proposed indication for chronic skin ulcers, which was filed on July 23, 2021. The FDA has indicated that certain elements of chemistry, manufacturing and control need to be addressed before proceeding with a pivotal study. Consequently, the study proposed in the IND has been put on clinical hold. In accordance with standard practice and regulation, the FDA has announced that it will issue a clinical suspension letter providing details on the basis of the suspension to the Company by September 21, 2021. “

On this news, PolarityTE’s stock price fell $ 0.08 per share, or 9.52%, to close at $ 0.76 per share on August 24, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading representations regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the defendants made false and / or misleading statements and / or failed to disclose that: (i) the IND SkinTE was deficient in certain elements of chemistry, manufacturing and control; (ii) therefore, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve SkinTE IND in its current form; (iii) as a result, the Company significantly overestimated the likelihood that SkinTE IND would obtain FDA approval; and (iv) accordingly, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all material times.

For more information on the PolarityTE class action lawsuit, visit: https://bespc.com/cases/PTE

Hyzon Motors, Inc. (NASDAQ: HYZN)

Class period: February 9, 2021 to September 27, 2021

Lead Applicant Deadline: November 29, 2021

On September 28, 2021, Blue Orca Capital released a report alleging, among other things, that “Channel checks reveal. . . that Hiringa was not actually a customer, but a “distribution partner” helping Hyzon market vehicles to real end customers in New Zealand. Although Hyzon claims that “Hiringa will account for 24% of the company’s planned deliveries in 2021”, the report alleged that “Hiringa has categorically stated that no deliveries will be taken in 2021”, so Blue Orca “expects To[s] a major lack of direction. In addition, several executives left Hyzon because they “were uncomfortable with the way Hyzon presented client orders to investors” because it looked “sadly a bit like what Nikola was doing.”

Following this news, the company’s stock price fell $ 2.58, or 28%, to close at $ 6.63 per share on September 28, 2021, hurting investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Claim Period, the Defendants made materially false and / or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the business, operations and prospects of the Company. . Specifically, the Defendants did not disclose to investors that: (1) Hyzon distorted the nature of its “client” contracts and severely embellished its “agreements” and “partnerships” with its clients; (2) Hyzon was unable to deliver its vehicles announced in 2021, within the announced deadlines; and (3) accordingly, the Defendants’ statements regarding its business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and / or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the Hyzon Motors class action lawsuit, visit: https://bespc.com/cases/HYZN

Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX)

Class period: June 17, 2021 and August 18, 2021

Principal applicant deadline: December 6, 2021

On June 17, 2021, Nano-X submitted a 510 (k) request to the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for its multi-source version of Nanox.ARC. A 510 (k) is a type of pre-market submission made to the FDA to demonstrate that a device to be marketed is as safe and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device. As a result of this submission, the defendants touted the Nanox. The CRA’s regulatory and business outlook in various public statements and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Nano-X Class Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Nano-X’s 510 (k) claim for the Nanox.ARC was deficient; (ii) therefore, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the 510 (k) application for Nanox.ARC in its current form; (iii) as a result, Nano-X overestimated the Nanox. the regulatory and business outlook for the CRA; and (iv) therefore, Nano-X’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 19, 2021, Nano-X reported that Nano-X “had received a request for additional information from the [FDA] regarding the company’s latest 510 (k) submission of its multi-source device, Nanox.ARC ”, and that“[t]he submission dossier is put on hold pending a complete response to the FDA’s list of deficiencies “, with”[t]the company’s response. . . due within 180 days from the date of the request for additional information. Following this news, the price of Nano-X’s common stock fell nearly 10%, hurting investors.

For more information on the Nano-X class action lawsuit, visit: https://bespc.com/cases/NNOX

Eargo, Inc. (NASDAQ: EAR)

Class period: June 17, 2021 and August 18, 2021

Principal applicant deadline: December 6, 2021

On August 12, 2021, after the market closed, Eargo revealed that claims submitted to the Company’s largest third-party payer, which represented 80% of Eargo’s accounts receivable, had not been paid since March 1, 2021.

Following this news, the company’s stock price fell $ 8.00, or more than 24%, to close at $ 24.70 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually high trading volume.

On September 22, 2021, after the market closed, Eargo revealed that “she is the target of a criminal investigation by the United States Department of Justice (the ‘DOJ’) into insurance claims the Company has made. submitted on behalf of clients covered by federal employee health plans. In addition, the DOJ is the “main contact related to the subject of the [ongoing] audit “of Eargo by an insurance company which is the Company’s largest third party payer. As a result of the above, Eargo has withdrawn its financial forecast for the entire year.

Following this news, the Company’s share price fell $ 14.81, or more than 68%, to close at $ 6.86 per share on September 23, 2021, on unusually high trading volume.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and / or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the business, operations and prospects of the Company. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose to the investors: (1) that Eargo improperly requested refunds from certain third-party payers; (2) that the foregoing was reasonably likely to lead to regulatory review; (3) that as a consequence and because the repayments in question involved the Company’s largest third party payer, the financial results of Eargo would be adversely affected; and (4) accordingly, the Defendants’ statements regarding its business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and / or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the Eargo class action lawsuit, visit: https://bespc.com/cases/EAR

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivatives and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the company, please visit www.bespc.com. Lawyer advertising. Past results do not guarantee similar results.

Contact details:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com


Source link

Previous As Latin American populations grow, the state also sees more small businesses
Next Pulsed Laser Deposition and Ablation System Market Major Players Outlook, Latest Trends and Forecast to 2028 | AdNaNoTek, PVD products, BlueWave Semiconductors, SVT Associates (SVTA), DE Technology, Scienta Omicron, OR Lasertechnology, Neocera, etc. - Puck77

No Comment

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *