Core Viewpoint - Securities class action lawsuits have been filed against DexCom, Inc. for alleged misleading statements and undisclosed risks related to its G6 and G7 continuous glucose monitoring systems during the specified Class Period from January 8, 2024, to September 17, 2025 [1][2]. Summary by Sections Allegations Against DexCom - Defendants allegedly made false or misleading statements regarding unauthorized design changes to the G6 and G7 systems, which compromised their reliability and posed health risks to users [2]. - The enhancements claimed for the G7 device were reportedly overstated, and the company downplayed the severity of issues related to the G7 devices [2]. - These actions have led to increased regulatory scrutiny and potential legal, reputational, and financial harm for DexCom [2]. Legal Process for Investors - Investors who suffered losses can seek to be appointed as lead plaintiffs by December 26, 2025, or remain absent class members [3]. - The lead plaintiff will represent the interests of all class members and select legal counsel for the case [3]. Firm Background - Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is known for prosecuting class actions and has a reputation for recovering significant amounts for victims of corporate misconduct [4].

Core Viewpoint - An amended securities class action lawsuit has been filed against CarMax, Inc., expanding the class period to include those who purchased securities between June 20, 2025, and November 5, 2025, with a lead plaintiff deadline set for January 2, 2026 [1]. Allegations Against Defendants - The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding CarMax's growth prospects, claiming that earlier growth was a temporary benefit due to customer speculation about tariffs [2]. - It is asserted that the positive statements made by defendants about the company's business and operations were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis [2]. Lead Plaintiff Process - Investors in CarMax may seek to be appointed as lead plaintiff representatives by January 2, 2026, or may choose to remain absent class members [3]. - The lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all class members and selects counsel to represent the class, with the ability to share in any recovery not affected by the decision to serve as lead plaintiff [3]. Firm Background - Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is known for prosecuting class actions and has recovered billions for victims of fraud and corporate misconduct [4].

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synopsys, Inc. for securities fraud following a significant stock drop attributed to potential violations of federal securities laws [1][3]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Kim v. Synopsys, Inc., et al., No. 3:25-cv-09410 [3]. - Investors have until December 30, 2025, to request to lead the case [3]. - The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Synopsys securities [3]. Group 2: Company Performance and Allegations - Synopsys provides design automation software products, with its Design IP segment being the fastest-growing, increasing from 25% of revenue in 2022 to 31% in 2024 [4]. - The company previously claimed that customers relied on its IP to minimize integration risk and noted strength in Europe and South Korea [5]. - Allegations state that customers began requiring more customization for IP components, negatively impacting the economics of the Design IP business and jeopardizing the business model [5]. Group 3: Stock Performance - Following the release of Q3 2025 financial results on September 9, 2025, Synopsys reported a 7.7% year-over-year decline in revenue for its Design IP segment, totaling $425.9 million, and a 43% year-over-year decline in net income, amounting to $242.5 million [6]. - The stock price fell nearly 36%, from $604.37 per share to $387.78 per share, after the company disclosed that its Design IP customers required more customization, which increased resource demands and extended timelines [6].

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stride, Inc. for securities fraud, following significant stock price drops attributed to alleged violations of federal securities laws [1][3]. Company Overview - Stride, Inc. is an education technology company that provides an online platform for students across the U.S. [4]. Allegations and Stock Impact - The lawsuit claims that Stride inflated enrollment numbers by retaining "ghost students" and ignored compliance requirements, leading to poor customer experiences and higher withdrawal rates [4]. - On September 14, 2025, a report of fraud allegations caused Stride's stock to drop by $18.60, or over 11%, from $158.36 to $139.76 per share [5]. - Following an admission of poor customer experience on October 28, 2025, Stride's stock plummeted by $83.48, or more than 54%, from $153.53 to $70.05 per share [6]. Legal Proceedings - Investors have until January 12, 2026, to request to lead the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [3]. - The lawsuit is filed under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [3]. Investor Guidance - Investors affected by the stock drop are encouraged to seek legal options and can submit their information to the law firm handling the case [8].

Core Viewpoint - A lawsuit has been filed against MoonLake Immunotherapeutics and its senior executives for potential violations of federal securities laws, following disappointing results from its Phase 3 VELA trials for sonelokimab [2][4][5]. Company Overview - MoonLake Immunotherapeutics is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing therapies for inflammatory diseases [5]. - The company conducted Phase 3 VELA trials for sonelokimab, an investigational therapeutic for moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa [5]. Allegations and Claims - The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that MoonLake misrepresented its clinical data and the benefits of its Nanobody structure compared to traditional monoclonal antibody treatments [4][6][7]. - The complaint suggests that the company's claims about "strong clinical data" and differentiation from competitors were misleading [6][7]. Stock Performance - Following the announcement of disappointing results from the VELA trials on September 28, 2025, MoonLake's stock price plummeted nearly 90%, from $61.99 per share to $6.24 per share [8].

Core Viewpoint - Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit for securities fraud following a significant stock drop attributed to alleged violations of federal securities laws [1][3]. Company Overview - Inspire Medical Systems develops and manufactures an implantable medical device for the treatment of sleep apnea, with the latest version being Inspire V, which received FDA approval on August 2, 2024 [4]. Allegations and Issues - The lawsuit claims that Inspire misled investors by assuring them that all necessary steps were taken for the launch of Inspire V, while in reality, the company failed to prepare clinicians and payors adequately, leading to delays in adoption and weak demand due to excess inventory of older devices [5][6]. - On August 4, 2025, Inspire disclosed that the launch of Inspire V would take longer than expected, resulting in a reduction of its 2025 earnings per share guidance by over 80% [7]. Stock Performance - Following the announcement of the delayed launch, Inspire's stock price fell by $42.04 per share, or more than 32%, from $129.95 on August 4, 2025, to $87.91 on August 5, 2025 [8].

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Hardie Industries plc for securities fraud following a significant stock drop attributed to potential violations of federal securities laws [1][3]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - Investors have until December 23, 2025, to request to lead the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [3]. - The lawsuit claims violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in James Hardie common stock [3]. Group 2: Company Background - James Hardie is a producer and marketer of high-performance fiber cement building solutions, primarily used in external siding for the residential building industry in the U.S. and Canada [4]. Group 3: Allegations of Fraud - During the relevant period, James Hardie misrepresented the strength and momentum of its North American fiber cement segment, claiming sustainable customer demand when, in fact, sales were driven by inventory loading by channel partners [5]. - On August 19, 2025, the company disclosed a 12% decline in North American fiber cement sales, revealing that customers were destocking to return to normal inventory levels, which led to a stock price drop of over 34% from $28.43 to $18.64 per share [6]. Group 4: Management Changes - On November 17, 2025, it was announced that Rachel Wilson would step down from her role as CFO of James Hardie [7].

Core Viewpoint - Beyond Meat, Inc. is under investigation for potential securities fraud related to the inflation of long-lived asset values, following significant stock price drops due to impairment charges and delayed earnings announcements [3][4][5][6]. Group 1: Investigation Details - Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is leading the investigation into Beyond Meat for possible violations of federal securities laws [1]. - The investigation focuses on whether Beyond Meat inflated the value of certain long-lived assets [4]. Group 2: Stock Performance - On October 24, 2025, Beyond Meat announced an expected non-cash impairment charge for the three months ended September 27, 2025, which was anticipated to be material, leading to a stock price drop of approximately 23%, from $2.84 to $2.185 per share [5]. - Following the announcement of a delay in the 3Q 2025 earnings report on November 3, 2025, Beyond Meat's stock experienced further significant declines during trading [6].

Core Points - A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Synopsys, Inc. for failing to disclose material information during the class period from December 4, 2024, to September 9, 2025 [3][4] - Investors who suffered substantial losses have until December 30, 2025, to file lead plaintiff applications [1][2] Financial Performance - Synopsys reported 3Q2025 revenue of $1.740 billion, which was below the guidance range of $1.755 billion to $1.785 billion [4] - The company's net income for 3Q2025 was $242.5 million, representing a 43% decline from $425.9 million in 3Q2024 [4] - The Design IP segment contributed approximately 25% of total revenue, amounting to $426.6 million, a 7.7% year-over-year decline [4] - Guidance indicated that Design IP revenues are expected to decline by at least 5% for the full fiscal year 2025 [4] Stock Market Reaction - Following the financial results announcement, Synopsys' share price dropped by $216.59, or 35.8%, closing at $387.78 per share on September 10, 2025 [5]

Core Viewpoint - Perrigo Company plc is facing a class action lawsuit for securities fraud due to alleged false and misleading statements regarding its baby formula business acquired from Nestlé, which suffered from underinvestment and required significant additional expenditures to address operational issues [5]. Summary by Sections Class Action Lawsuit - The Schall Law Firm is reminding investors of a class action lawsuit against Perrigo for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1]. - Investors who purchased Perrigo's securities between February 27, 2025, and November 4, 2025, are encouraged to contact the firm before January 16, 2026 [2]. Allegations Against Perrigo - The complaint alleges that Perrigo made false and misleading statements to the market regarding the state of its baby formula business, which required substantial investments beyond initial cost estimates to rectify its issues [5]. - The company's public statements were deemed false and materially misleading throughout the class period, leading to investor damages when the truth was revealed [5]. Legal Representation - The Schall Law Firm specializes in securities class action lawsuits and is representing investors globally [6].