Workflow
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against ESSA, Cardlytics, Novo Nordisk, and Crocs and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
Globenewswireยท2025-03-21 01:00

Group 1: ESSA Pharma Inc. (NASDAQ:EPIX) - The class period for the lawsuit is from December 12, 2023, to October 31, 2024, with a lead plaintiff deadline of March 25, 2025 [2] - The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the efficacy of masofaniten in combination with enzalutamide for treating prostate cancer [2] - Key allegations include that the combination treatment had no clear efficacy benefit over enzalutamide alone and that the M-E Combination Study was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint [2] Group 2: Cardlytics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CDLX) - The class period for the lawsuit is from March 14, 2024, to August 7, 2024, with a lead plaintiff deadline of March 25, 2025 [3] - The lawsuit claims that defendants made false statements regarding the company's ability to increase billings in line with rising consumer engagement [3] - Allegations include that changes to Cardlytics' Ads Decision Engine led to "underdelivery" of budgets and customer billing estimates, resulting in misleading positive statements about the company's prospects [3] Group 3: Novo Nordisk A/S (NYSE:NVO) - The class period for the lawsuit is from November 2, 2022, to December 19, 2024, with a lead plaintiff deadline of March 25, 2025 [4] - The complaint alleges that defendants created a false impression of reliable information regarding the success of the phase 3 CagriSema study on obesity [4] - Key points include that the optimistic claims about achieving at least 25% weight loss were misleading and that the study's flexible protocol limited its ability to provide effective weight loss data [4] Group 4: Crocs, Inc. (NASDAQ:CROX) - The class period for the lawsuit is from November 3, 2022, to October 28, 2024, with a lead plaintiff deadline of March 24, 2025 [6] - The lawsuit alleges that defendants misrepresented the revenue growth of HEYDUDE, claiming it was driven by management's decision to stock wholesalers aggressively, regardless of retail demand [6]