DEFI DEADLINE: ROSEN, NATIONAL INVESTOR COUNSEL, Encourages DeFi Technologies, Inc. Investors to Secure Counsel Before Important January 30 Deadline in Securities Class Action - DEFT
DeFi Technologies IncDeFi Technologies Inc(US:DEFT) TMX Newsfile·2026-01-23 03:09

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm is reminding investors who purchased securities of DeFi Technologies, Inc. during the specified class period of the upcoming lead plaintiff deadline for a class action lawsuit [1]. Group 1: Class Action Details - Investors who purchased DeFi Technologies securities between May 12, 2025, and November 14, 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 interested parties must move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff by January 30, 2026 [3]. - Investors can join the class action by visiting the provided link or contacting the law firm directly for more information [6]. Group 2: Law Firm 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 and being ranked No. 1 for the number of settlements in 2017 [4]. - The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors, including over $438 million in 2019 alone [4]. - Founding partner Laurence Rosen was recognized as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 in 2020, highlighting the firm's expertise and reputation in the field [4]. Group 3: Case Allegations - The lawsuit alleges that DeFi Technologies made false and misleading statements regarding delays in executing its DeFi arbitrage strategy, which was a key revenue driver [5]. - It is claimed that the company understated the competition it faced from other digital asset treasury companies, impacting its ability to execute its strategy [5]. - The lawsuit asserts that these issues led to DeFi Technologies being unlikely to meet its revenue guidance for the fiscal year 2025, and that public statements made by the defendants were materially false and misleading [5].