Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed… | Your money
NEW YORK, Jan. 17, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC, a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Meta Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMAT), Talis Biomedical Corporation (NASDAQ: TLIS), FirstCash Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCFS) and Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH). Shareholders have until the deadlines below to ask the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information on each case can be found at the link provided.
Meta Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMAT)
Course period: September 21, 2020 – December 14, 2021
Lead Applicant Deadline: March 4, 2022
According to the lawsuit, the defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the business combination of Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc. and Metamaterial Inc. would result in an SEC investigation and subpoena in the matter titled In the Matter of Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc.; (2) the Company has significantly overestimated its business relationships and connections; (3) the Company has significantly overestimated its ability to produce and market its products; (4) the Company significantly overestimated the novelty and capabilities of its products; (5) the Company’s products did not have the potential to be disruptive because, among other things, the Company priced its products too high; and (6) as a result, the defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On this news, Meta’s stock fell $0.18 per share, or 5.83%, to close at $2.91 per share on Dec. 14, 2021, further hurting investors.
For more information on the Meta Materials class action, please visit: https://bespc.com/cases/MMAT
Talis Biomedical Corporation (NASDAQ: TLIS)
Class Period: February 12, 2021 IPO
Lead Applicant Deadline: March 8, 2022
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the registration statement was false and misleading and failed to state material adverse facts. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the comparator test in the primary study lacked sufficient sensitivity to support Talis’ EUA application for the Talis One COVID-19 test; (2) that, as a result, Talis was reasonably likely to experience delays in obtaining regulatory approval for the Talis One COVID-19 test; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s marketing schedule would be significantly delayed; and (4) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the company’s business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis.
At the start of this action, Talis stock traded as low as $3.81 per share, down more than 76% from the IPO price of $16 per share.
For more information on the Talis class action, please visit: https://bespc.com/cases/TLIS
FirstCash Holdings, Inc.
Course period: February 1, 2018 – November 12, 2021
Lead Applicant Deadline: March 15, 2022
In September 2016, the company, then known as First Cash Financial Services Inc., completed its merger with pawnbroker and payday lender Cash America International, Inc. (“Cash America”). Following the merger, the combined company changed its name to FirstCash Inc. Similarly, following a December 2021 merger with lending company American First Finance, the company changed its name again to FirstCash Holdings, Inc.
The Military Loans Act (“MLA”) provides protections for active duty military personnel and their dependents under the extension of consumer credit. Among other protections, the MLA limits the interest rates that can be charged on consumer loans to active duty members of the armed forces and their covered dependents to a maximum of 36%. In addition, the MLA prohibits lenders from requiring covered parties to submit to arbitration, as well as from imposing other limitations.
In November 2013, Cash America entered into a consent order with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) for making loans to covered service members or their dependents in violation of the MLA, violations related to the recovery of receivables, failure to prevent or detect in a timely manner problematic behavior due to inadequate internal compliance and failure to maintain required records (the “Order”). In the Order, Cash America agreed to cease and desist from violations and to implement a plan designed to ensure its future compliance with the terms of the Order. The CFPB fined Cash America $5 million and ordered it to deposit $8 million into an account to provide relief to affected consumers.
In 2015, the Department of Defense expanded the MLA to cover more credit products, including pawnbrokers. Newly covered creditors, including pawnbrokers, had until October 3, 2016 to bring their operations into compliance with the new rules.
In response to the MLA expansion, which prohibited the company from issuing loans with interest rates above 36%, FirstCash claimed it was “unable to offer any of its current credit products , including pawnbrokers, to members of the United States military or their assigns.” The Company also asserted throughout the Class Period that it used systems, policies and robust procedures to ensure its regulatory compliance and adherence to applicable laws, rules and regulations governing its business, including the MLA.
Despite these assurances, unbeknownst to investors throughout the Class Period, FirstCash engaged in widespread and systemic violations of the MLA and provided thousands of loans to active duty military and their dependents at usurious rates. On November 12, 2021, the CFPB filed a lawsuit alleging that FirstCash and its subsidiary, Cash America West, Inc., violated the MLA by charging more than the allowable annual percentage rate of 36% on more than 3,600 loans on pledge to more than 1,000 assets. -service service members and their dependents. The CFPB also alleged that FirstCash violated the CFPB’s 2013 order prohibiting future violations of the MLA, which remained in effect and applied to FirstCash after the company’s September 2016 merger with First Cash America.
Following these revelations, FirstCash’s stock price fell more than $7 per share, or 8%, in a single day to close at $78.64 per share on November 12, 2021 on trading volume abnormally high. The stock continued to decline in the following days as the market digested the news, losing another $10 per share by November 18, 2021.
For more information on the FirstCash class action, please visit: https://bespc.com/cases/FCFS
Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH)
Course period: August 6, 2020 – November 8, 2021
Lead Applicant Deadline: March 11, 2022
On November 8, 2021, Oak Street disclosed that on November 1, 2021, the company received a Civil Investigation (“CID”) request from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). According to CID, the DOJ was investigating whether the company violated the False Claims Act. CID is also requesting documents and information related to Oak Street’s dealings with “third-party marketers” and Oak Street’s “provision of free transportation to federal health care recipients.” Following this news, the company’s share price fell $9.75, or more than 20%, to close at $37.14 per share on November 9, 2021, on unusually high trading volume. raised. The Complaint filed in this Class Action 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 societal prospects. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Oak Street had relationships with third-party marketers that could provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2) that Oak Street provided free transportation to federal health care recipients in a manner that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) that such activities may constitute violations of the False Claims Act; (4) that as such, Oak Street was at heightened risk of investigation by the DOJ and/or other federal law enforcement agencies; (5) that, as a result, Oak Street suffered adverse impacts related to defense and settlement costs and the diversion of management resources; and (6) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the company’s business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis.
For more information about the Oak Street Health class action lawsuit, go to: https://bespc.com/cases/OSH
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 before state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the company, please visit www.bespc.com. Lawyer advertisement. Prior results do not guarantee similar results.