Gainey McKenna & Egleston Announces a Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against 6D Global Technologies, Inc. (SIXD)


NEW YORK, Oct. 14, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of 6D Global Technologies, Inc. (“6D Global” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq:SIXD) or its predecessor CleanTech Innovations, Inc. (Nasdaq:CTEK) between November 3, 2010 through September 10, 2015 (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had deficient internal controls, (2) the lack of internal controls allowed Defendant Benjamin Wei to exert influence and control over the Company, (3) the Company was engaged in improper and undisclosed material related party transactions, (4) Defendants were engaged in a scheme to manipulate the Company’s stock price, and (5) as a result, the Company’s public statements 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.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 14, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.  Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.com for more information about the firm. 

In some jurisdictions this may be considered attorney advertising -- prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.