NEW YORK, Jan. 17, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Meta Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMAT), Talis Biomedical Corporation (NASDAQ: TLIS), FirstCash Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCFS), and Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Meta Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMAT)
Class Period: September 21, 2020 – December 14, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 4, 2022
According to the lawsuit, 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 captioned In the Matter of Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc.; (2) the Company has materially overstated its business connections and dealings; (3) the Company has materially overstated its ability to produce and commercialize its products; (4) the Company has materially overstated its products’ novelty and capabilities; (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, 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 December 14, 2021, thereby injuring investors further.
For more information on the Meta Materials class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/MMAT
Talis Biomedical Corporation (NASDAQ: TLIS)
Class Period: February 12, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2022
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the comparator assay in the primary study lacked sufficient sensitivity to support Talis’s EUA application for 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 commercialization timeline 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 a reasonable basis.
By the commencement of this action, Talis stock has traded as low as $3.81 per share, a more than 76% decline from the $16 per share IPO price.
For more information on the Talis class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TLIS
FirstCash Holdings, Inc.
Class Period: February 1, 2018 – November 12, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 15, 2022
In September 2016, the Company, then known as First Cash Financial Services Inc., finalized its merger with pawnshop provider 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 again changed its name to FirstCash Holdings, Inc.
The Military Lending Act (“MLA”) provides protections for active-duty service members and their dependents in connection with the extension of consumer credit. Among other protections, the MLA limits the interest rates that may be charged on consumer loans to active-duty armed forces members and their covered dependents to no more than 36%. Further, the MLA prohibits lenders from requiring covered parties to submit to arbitration, as well as 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 members of the military or their dependents in violation of the MLA, violations relating to debt collection, failure to prevent or timely detect problematic conduct due to inadequate internal compliance, and failure to maintain required records (the “Order”). In the Order, Cash America agreed to cease and desist from the 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 in order to provide redress to affected consumers.
In 2015, the Department of Defense expanded the MLA to cover more credit products, including pawn loans. Newly covered creditors, which included pawn brokers, had until October 3, 2016 to bring their operations into compliance with the new rules.
In response to the expansion of the MLA, which prohibited the Company from issuing loans with interest rates higher than 36%, FirstCash claimed that it was “unable to offer any of its current credit products, including pawn loans, to members of the U.S. military or their dependents.” The Company also claimed throughout the Class Period that it employed robust systems, policies, and 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 was engaged in widespread and systemic violations of the MLA and had made thousands of loans to active-duty service members 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., had violated the MLA by charging higher than the allowable 36% annual percentage rate on over 3,600 pawn loans to more than 1,000 active-duty service members and their dependents. The CFPB also alleged that FirstCash had violated the 2013 CFPB Order prohibiting future MLA violations, which remained in effect and applied to FirstCash following the September 2016 merger of the Company and First Cash America
As a result of these revelations, the price of FirstCash stock plummeted over $7 per share, or 8%, in a single day to close at $78.64 per share on November 12, 2021 on abnormally high trading volume. The stock continued to fall in subsequent days as the market digested the news, dropping another $10 per share by November 18, 2021.
For more information on the FirstCash class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FCFS
Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH)
Class Period: August 6, 2020 – November 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 11, 2022
On November 8, 2021, Oak Street disclosed that on November 1, 2021 the Company received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). According to the CID, the DOJ was investigating whether the Company violated the False Claims Act. The CID also requests documents and information related to the Oak Street’s relationships with “third-party marketing agents” and Oak Street’s “provision of free transportation to federal health care beneficiaries.”
On 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 heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Oak Street maintained relationships with third-party marketing agents likely to provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2) that Oak Street was providing free transportation to federal health care beneficiaries in a manner that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) that these activities may be 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 was subject to adverse impacts related to defense and settlement costs and 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 a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Oak Street Health class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/OSH
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. 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, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
