DEADLINE ALERT for PUBM, SNAP, NUTX, and AI: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Class Actions on Behalf of Shareholders

Core Viewpoint - Class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of several publicly-traded companies, alleging that these companies made materially false and misleading statements regarding their business operations and prospects [1]. Group 1: PubMatic, Inc. (NASDAQ: PUBM) - The class period for PubMatic is from February 27, 2025, to August 11, 2025, with a lead plaintiff deadline of October 20, 2025 [2]. - Allegations include failure to disclose a significant shift of clients to a new platform by a top DSP buyer, resulting in reduced ad spend and revenue for PubMatic [2]. - Defendants' positive statements about the company's business were deemed materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis [2]. Group 2: Snap Inc. (NYSE: SNAP) - The class period for Snap is from April 29, 2025, to August 5, 2025, with a lead plaintiff deadline of October 20, 2025 [3]. - The complaint alleges that Snap's optimistic reports on advertising growth were misleading, as they relied too heavily on the company's execution capabilities [3]. - Defendants failed to disclose significant execution errors and macroeconomic challenges, leading to materially misleading statements about the company's prospects [3]. Group 3: Nutex Health Inc. (NASDAQ: NUTX) - The class period for Nutex is from August 8, 2024, to August 14, 2025, with a lead plaintiff deadline of October 21, 2025 [4]. - Allegations include engaging in a scheme to defraud insurance companies, leading to unsustainable revenue claims [4]. - The company overstated its ability to remediate internal control weaknesses, resulting in improper accounting of stock-based compensation obligations [4]. Group 4: C3.ai, Inc. (NYSE: AI) - The class period for C3.ai is from February 26, 2025, to August 8, 2025, with a lead plaintiff deadline of October 21, 2025 [6]. - The complaint alleges that the company's optimistic growth reports were misleading, relying heavily on the CEO's health and effectiveness [6]. - Defendants failed to disclose that the CEO had not sufficiently recovered to fulfill his role, leading to materially misleading statements about the company's prospects [6].