The Law Offices of Vincent Wong
SHAREHOLDER ALERT: SDC TEUM IRBT: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of Important Class Action Deadlines
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 4:45 PM
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / November 5, 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.
Smiledirectclub, Inc. (NASDAQ:SDC)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/smiledirectclub-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=4184&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
Class Period: investors who purchased SmileDirectClub Class A common stock (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 12, 2019 initial public offering, or (b) during the period from September 8, 2019 through October 2, 2019.
Allegations against SDC include that: (1) administrative personnel, rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the Company's customers and monitored their progress; (2) as a result, the Company's practices did not qualify as teledentistry under applicable standards; (3) as a result, the Company was subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of dentistry; (4) the efficacy of the Company's treatment was overstated; (5) the Company had concealed these deceptive marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Pareteum Corporation (NASDAQ:TEUM)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/pareteum-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=4184&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2019
Class Period: December 14, 2017 to October 21, 2019
Allegations against TEUM include that: (a) it was not true that the Company's purported success was the result of hyper-demand for Pareteum's unique products or exceptional service, or the Company's competent management; but, in fact, Defendants had propped up the Company's results by manipulating Pareteum's accounting for revenues, income, and the important Backlog metric; (b) Defendants had materially overstated the Company's profitability by failing to properly account for the Company's results of operations and by artificially inflating the Company's financial results; (c) it was not true that Pareteum contained even the most minimally adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls necessary to assure that Pareteum's reported financial statements were true, accurate, and/or reliable; (d) as a result, it also was not true that the Company's financial statements and reports were prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules; and (e) as a result of the aforementioned adverse conditions, Defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Pareteum was operating according to plan, or that Pareteum could achieve the guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by Defendants.
iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ:IRBT)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/irobot-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=4184&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2019
Class Period: November 21, 2016 to October 22, 2019
The filed complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the reason for iRobot's acquisitions of Tokyo-based Sales on Demand Corporation and privately-held Robopolis SAS, which was to control the Company's largest distributors so that defendants could inflate sales and revenue figures by stuffing the channel. Defendants further misled investors by repeatedly telling them throughout the Class Period that the Company was seeing continued double-digit revenue growth, and by attributing the growth to increased demand for the Roomba vacuums, when in reality defendants were engaging in channel-stuffing to artificially boost sales. Defendants also misstated that the Company's channel inventory levels had not changed and would not change dramatically from quarter to quarter or year over year, when in fact iRobot was deliberately stuffing the channel in order to claim false revenue growth.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email [email protected] 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
E-Mail: [email protected]
SOURCE: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong