Press "Enter" to skip to content

IIPR, NTRA & CS Class Actions: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, A Top Class Action Firm, Reminds Investors to Contact the Firm and Actively Participate

NEW YORK, May 13, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Attorney Advertising — Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. 

Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. IIPR IIPR-PA) 
Class Period: May 7, 2020 – April 13, 2022
Deadline: June 24, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/iipr.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that Innovative Industrial Properties’ focus is to be a cannabis company lender rather than a real estate investment trust (REIT); (2) that the true values of Innovative Industrial Properties’ properties are significantly lower than Innovative Industrial Properties represents; (3) existential issues in its top customers; (4) that as a result, its top customers may not be able to continue making payments to Innovative Industrial Properties and Innovative Industrial Properties would face significant issues replacing these customers; and (5) that as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Natera, Inc. NTRA
Class Period: February 26, 2020 – April 19, 2022
Deadline: June 27, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/ntra.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Panorama was not reliable and resulted in high rates of false positives; (2) Prospera did not have superior precision compared to competing tests; (3) as a result of Defendants’ false and misleading claims about Natera’s technology, the company was exposed to substantial legal and regulatory risks; (4) Natera relied upon deceptive sales and billing practices to drive its revenue growth; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

Credit Suisse Group AG CS 
Class Period: March 19, 2021 – March 25, 2022
Deadline: June 28, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cs.
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) Credit Suisse had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) Credit Suisse’s practice of lending money to Russian oligarchs subject to U.S. and international sanctions created a significant risk of violating rules pertaining to those sanctions and future sanctions; (iii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to an increased risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; (iv) the Securitization Deal concerned loans that Credit Suisse made to Russian oligarchs previously sanctioned by the U.S.; (v) the purpose of the Securitization Deal was to offload the risks associated with these loans and mitigate the impact on Credit Suisse of sanctions likely to be implemented by Western nations in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; (vi) Credit Suisse’s request that non-participating investors destroy documents related to the Securitization Deal was intended to conceal the Company’s noncompliance with U.S. and international sanctions in its lending practices; (vii) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to subject the Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and significant reputational harm; and (viii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com


This post was originally published on this site

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.