Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Red Cat Holdings, Inc. securities between March 18, 2022, and January 15, 2025, alleging misleading statements regarding production capacity and contract value [1][5]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The class action lawsuit claims that Red Cat Holdings made false and misleading statements about the production capacity of its Salt Lake City Facility and the overall value of the SRR Contract [5]. - Investors who purchased Red Cat securities during the class period may be entitled to compensation without any out-of-pocket fees through a contingency fee arrangement [2]. Group 2: Participation Information - Interested parties can join the class action by visiting the provided link or contacting Phillip Kim, Esq. for more information [3][6]. - A lead plaintiff must move the Court by July 22, 2025, to represent other class members in the litigation [1][3]. Group 3: Rosen Law Firm's Credentials - Rosen Law Firm has a strong track record in securities class actions, having achieved the largest securities class action settlement against a Chinese company at the time and recovering hundreds of millions for investors [4]. - The firm has been consistently ranked among the top firms for securities class action settlements since 2013, securing over $438 million for investors in 2019 alone [4].

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm is reminding investors who purchased NET Power Inc. securities between June 9, 2023, and March 7, 2025, of the upcoming lead plaintiff deadline on June 17, 2025, for a class action lawsuit [1][2]. Group 1: Class Action Details - Investors who bought NET Power securities during the specified Class Period may be entitled to compensation without any out-of-pocket fees through a contingency fee arrangement [1]. - A class action lawsuit has already been filed, and interested parties must move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff by June 17, 2025 [2]. - The lawsuit alleges that NET Power made false and misleading statements regarding Project Permian, including the likelihood of completing the project on schedule and the associated costs [3]. Group 2: Allegations Against NET Power - The lawsuit claims that NET Power was unlikely to complete Project Permian on time and that the project would be significantly more expensive due to supply chain issues and site-specific challenges [3]. - It is asserted that the projections regarding the time and capital needed for Project Permian were unrealistic, which could negatively impact NET Power's business and financial results [3]. - The public statements made by NET Power were deemed materially false and misleading, leading to investor damages when the true details became known [3]. Group 3: Rosen Law Firm's Credentials - Rosen Law Firm emphasizes the importance of selecting qualified legal counsel with a successful track record in securities class actions [4]. - The firm has achieved significant settlements, including the largest securities class action settlement against a Chinese company at the time and has been ranked highly for its performance in this area since 2013 [4]. - In 2019, the firm secured over $438 million for investors, showcasing its capability in recovering funds for clients [4].

NEW YORK, June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: NSSC) between February 5, 2024 and February 3, 2025, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important June 24, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased NAPCO securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee ...

NEW YORK, June 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Organon & Co. (NYSE: OGN) between October 31, 2024 and April 30, 2025, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important July 22, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Organon securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO ...

NEW YORK, June 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IOVA) between May 9, 2024 and May 8, 2025, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important July 14, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Iovance securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. ...

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm is reminding investors who purchased common stock of Everus Construction Group, Inc. during the specified Class Period of the upcoming lead plaintiff deadline for a class action lawsuit [1][2]. Group 1: Class Action Details - The Class Period for the lawsuit is defined as between October 31, 2024, and February 11, 2025, inclusive [1]. - Investors who held MDU Resources common stock as of October 21, 2024, and acquired Everus Construction common stock during the spinoff may be eligible for compensation [2]. - A class action lawsuit has already been filed, and interested parties must move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff by June 3, 2025 [3]. Group 2: Legal Representation - Investors are encouraged to select qualified legal counsel with a proven track record in securities class actions [4]. - Rosen Law Firm has a history of significant settlements, including the largest securities class action settlement against a Chinese company at the time [4]. - The firm has consistently ranked highly in securities class action settlements and has recovered substantial amounts for investors [4]. Group 3: Case Allegations - The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false or misleading statements regarding Everus Construction's business operations [5]. - Specific claims include that the backlog conversion cycle had elongated due to larger projects, leading to delayed revenue recognition [5]. - The lawsuit asserts that the positive statements made by defendants were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis [5].

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Organon & Co. securities for the period between October 31, 2024, and April 30, 2025, due to misleading statements regarding the company's capital allocation and dividend strategy [1][5]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit alleges that Organon provided positive statements while concealing material adverse facts about its priorities, particularly regarding capital allocation and a significant reduction in quarterly dividends [5]. - Following the acquisition of Dermavant, Organon prioritized debt reduction, leading to a 70% decrease in the regular quarterly dividend, which was not disclosed to investors [5]. Group 2: Participation Information - Investors who purchased Organon securities during the class period may be entitled to compensation without any out-of-pocket fees through a contingency fee arrangement [2]. - To join the class action, interested parties can visit the provided link or contact the law firm directly for more information [3][6]. Group 3: Law Firm Credentials - Rosen Law Firm has a strong track record in securities class actions, having achieved significant settlements, including the largest securities class action settlement against a Chinese company at the time [4]. - The firm has consistently ranked among the top firms for securities class action settlements and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors [4].

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been filed against Krispy Kreme, Inc. for misleading statements regarding its partnership with McDonald's and the subsequent decline in product demand, with a lead plaintiff deadline set for July 15, 2025 [1][4]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit alleges that Krispy Kreme made false and misleading statements about the demand for its products at McDonald's locations, which materially declined after the initial marketing launch [4]. - It is claimed that the declining demand at McDonald's was a significant factor in the decrease of average sales per door per week [4]. - The partnership with McDonald's is stated to have been unprofitable, posing risks to its continuation and leading to a pause in expansion into new locations [4]. Group 2: Legal Representation - Investors are encouraged to select qualified legal counsel with a proven track record in securities class actions, as many firms may lack the necessary experience and resources [3]. - The Rosen Law Firm has a history of successful settlements, including the largest securities class action settlement against a Chinese company at the time, and has recovered hundreds of millions for investors [3]. Group 3: Participation Information - Investors who purchased Krispy Kreme securities during the class period may be entitled to compensation without upfront fees through a contingency fee arrangement [1]. - To join the class action, investors can submit a form or contact the Rosen Law Firm for more information [2][5].

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm is reminding investors who purchased Open Lending Corporation securities during the specified class period of the upcoming lead plaintiff deadline on June 30, 2025, for a class action lawsuit [1][2]. Group 1: Class Action Details - Investors who purchased Open Lending securities between February 24, 2022, and March 31, 2025, may be entitled to compensation without any out-of-pocket fees through a contingency fee arrangement [2]. - A class action lawsuit has already been filed, and those wishing to serve as lead plaintiff must act by June 30, 2025 [3]. - The Rosen Law Firm emphasizes the importance of selecting qualified legal counsel with a successful track record in securities class actions [4]. Group 2: Allegations Against Open Lending - The lawsuit alleges that Open Lending's defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about the company's business and operations [5]. - Specific allegations include misrepresentation of Open Lending's risk-based pricing models, misleading statements regarding profit share revenue, and failure to disclose the devaluation of vintage loans from 2021 and 2022 [5]. - The lawsuit claims that these misleading statements resulted in investor damages when the true details became public [5].

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm is reminding investors who purchased common stock of West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. during the specified Class Period of the upcoming lead plaintiff deadline on July 7, 2025 [1]. Group 1: Class Action Details - Investors who bought West common stock between February 16, 2023, and February 12, 2025, may be eligible for compensation without any out-of-pocket fees through a contingency fee arrangement [2]. - A class action lawsuit has already been filed, and interested parties can join by submitting a form or contacting the law firm [3][6]. - The lead plaintiff must file a motion with the Court by July 7, 2025, to represent other class members in the litigation [3]. Group 2: Law Firm Credentials - Rosen Law Firm emphasizes the importance of selecting qualified legal counsel with a successful track record in securities class actions [4]. - The firm has achieved significant settlements, including the largest securities class action settlement against a Chinese company at the time and has been ranked highly for its performance in this area [4]. - In 2019, the firm secured over $438 million for investors, showcasing its capability in recovering funds for clients [4]. Group 3: Case Allegations - The lawsuit alleges that West Pharmaceutical Services made false and misleading statements regarding its business operations, particularly concerning its High-Value Products portfolio and the SmartDose device [5]. - It is claimed that West was experiencing significant destocking and operational inefficiencies that were not disclosed, leading to misleading positive statements about the company's prospects [5]. - The lawsuit asserts that these undisclosed issues resulted in damages to investors when the true situation became known [5].