Core Viewpoint - Kuehn Law, PLLC is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of Quantum Corporation, following allegations of financial misrepresentation [1][2]. Group 1: Allegations of Misrepresentation - Quantum Corporation is accused of improperly recognizing revenue during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025 [2]. - The company will need to restate its previously filed financial statements for the fiscal third quarter ending December 31, 2024, due to these misrepresentations [2]. - Statements regarding Quantum's business, operations, and prospects are claimed to be materially false and misleading, lacking a reasonable basis at all relevant times [2]. Group 2: Shareholder Actions - Shareholders who purchased QMCO shares prior to November 15, 2024, are encouraged to contact Kuehn Law for potential legal action [3]. - Kuehn Law covers all case costs and does not charge investor clients, emphasizing the importance of timely action for shareholders [3].

SAN DIEGO, Jan. 27, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that Smartsheet Inc. (NYSE: SMAR) shareholders who held Smartsheet securities as of the record date, October 25, 2024, and were harmed by defendants' alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the acquisition of Smartsheet by Blackstone Inc., Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC, and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority ("Merger"), have until February 24, 2026 to s ...

MILWAUKEE, Jan. 26, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Ademi LLP is investigating Skywater (NASDAQ: SKYT) for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law in its recently announced transaction with IonQ. Click here to learn how to join our investigation and obtain additional information or contact us at [email protected] or toll-free: 866-264-3995. There is no cost or obligation to you. In the transaction, Skywater stockholders will receive $15.00 in cash and $20.00 in IonQ stock for each share held, ...

Core Viewpoint - The Fermi Inc. class action lawsuit alleges that the company and its executives made misleading statements regarding its Project Matador, leading to significant financial losses for investors following the termination of a key funding agreement [3][4][5]. Group 1: Class Action Lawsuit Details - Purchasers of Fermi Inc. common stock during the IPO and the specified Class Period have until March 6, 2026, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit [1]. - The lawsuit, titled Lupia v. Fermi Inc., is pending in the Southern District of New York and accuses Fermi and its executives of violating the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1][2]. Group 2: Allegations Against Fermi - The lawsuit claims that Fermi overstated tenant demand for its Project Matador campus and failed to disclose reliance on a single tenant's funding commitment [3]. - It is alleged that there was a significant risk of the tenant terminating its funding commitment, which ultimately occurred, leading to a substantial drop in stock price [3][4]. Group 3: Financial Impact - Following the announcement that the first tenant for Project Matador had terminated a $150 million funding agreement, Fermi's stock price fell nearly 34% [4]. - The stock price has reportedly traded as low as $8.59 per share, representing a 59% decline from the IPO price of $21.00 per share [5].

Core Viewpoint - Kuehn Law, PLLC is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of Dow Inc. related to misrepresentation of the company's financial health and operational challenges [1][2]. Group 1: Allegations of Misrepresentation - A federal securities lawsuit claims that insiders at Dow overstated the company's ability to handle macroeconomic and tariff-related challenges, as well as its financial flexibility to support dividends [2]. - The lawsuit alleges that the negative impacts of competitive pressures, declining global sales, and product oversupply on Dow's business were understated, leading to materially false and misleading public statements [2]. Group 2: Shareholder Actions - Shareholders who purchased Dow stock prior to January 30, 2025, are encouraged to contact Kuehn Law for potential legal action, as there may be limited time to enforce their rights [3]. - Kuehn Law offers to cover all case costs and does not charge investor clients, emphasizing the importance of shareholder participation in maintaining market integrity [4].

Core Viewpoint - Ademi LLP is investigating Nathan's Famous for potential breaches of fiduciary duty and other legal violations related to its transaction with Smithfield, which involves a cash payment of $102 per share, valuing the deal at approximately $450 million [1][2]. Group 1: Transaction Details - Nathan's Famous stockholders will receive $102 per share in cash, leading to a total transaction value of around $450 million [2]. - The transaction agreement includes provisions that significantly limit competing offers for Nathan's Famous, imposing penalties if a competing bid is accepted [3]. Group 2: Board Conduct - The investigation focuses on the actions of Nathan's Famous board of directors to determine if they are meeting their fiduciary responsibilities to all shareholders [3].

Core Viewpoint - The F5 class action lawsuit alleges that F5, Inc. and its executives misled investors regarding the company's revenue outlook and growth potential while downplaying risks associated with a significant security incident [1][4]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit, titled Smith v. F5, Inc., seeks to represent purchasers of F5 securities and claims violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1]. - The class action lawsuit alleges that F5 created a false impression of its financial health and growth prospects during the Class Period [4]. - The lawsuit highlights a significant security breach that compromised F5's systems, which was not disclosed to investors until later [5]. Group 2: Financial Impact - Following the disclosure of the security breach on October 15, 2025, F5's stock price fell nearly 14% over two trading days [5]. - On October 27, 2025, F5 reported fourth-quarter fiscal year 2025 results that fell significantly below market expectations for fiscal 2026, attributing this to the security breach [6]. - The company announced expected reductions in sales and renewals, elongated sales cycles, and increased expenses due to ongoing remediation efforts, leading to an 11% drop in stock price over two trading days [6]. Group 3: Company Background - F5 is described as a global multi-cloud application security and delivery company, enabling customers to deploy, secure, and operate applications on-premises or via public cloud [3].

Core Viewpoint - Ademi LLP is investigating RAPT for potential breaches of fiduciary duty and other legal violations related to its transaction with GSK plc [1] Group 1: Transaction Details - RAPT stockholders can choose to receive $58.00 per share, leading to an estimated total equity value of $2.2 billion [2] - RAPT insiders are set to gain significant benefits from change of control arrangements as part of the transaction [2] Group 2: Investigation Focus - The transaction agreement restricts competing offers for RAPT by imposing a substantial penalty if a competing bid is accepted [3] - The investigation will assess whether the RAPT board of directors is meeting their fiduciary responsibilities to all shareholders [3]

Core Points - The CoreWeave class action lawsuit has been initiated against CoreWeave, Inc. and its executives for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the class period from March 28, 2025, to December 15, 2025 [1][3] - CoreWeave is accused of overstating its ability to meet customer demand and failing to disclose significant risks associated with its reliance on a single third-party data center supplier [3][4] - The lawsuit highlights a significant deal worth up to $11.9 billion with OpenAI announced shortly before CoreWeave's IPO, and a subsequent all-stock acquisition agreement with Core Scientific, which was later terminated due to insufficient shareholder votes [2][4] Allegations and Impact - Allegations include that CoreWeave's executives made misleading statements regarding the company's operational capabilities and the risks posed by its data center supplier, which were likely to negatively impact revenue [3][5] - Following the announcement of lower revenue guidance due to delays from a third-party data center developer, CoreWeave's stock price fell by over 16% [5] - A Wall Street Journal article revealed that delays were more severe than previously acknowledged, leading to an additional 3.4% drop in CoreWeave's stock price [6] Legal Process - Investors who purchased CoreWeave securities during the class period can seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, which allows them to represent the interests of all class members [7][8] - The lead plaintiff can select a law firm to litigate the case, and participation as lead plaintiff is not required to share in any potential recovery [8] About the Law Firm - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a leading law firm specializing in securities fraud and shareholder litigation, having secured over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone [9]

Core Viewpoint - Kuehn Law, PLLC is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of Coupang, Inc. related to a federal securities lawsuit concerning inadequate cybersecurity protocols and misrepresentation of information to shareholders [1][2]. Group 1: Cybersecurity Issues - Coupang had inadequate cybersecurity protocols that allowed a former employee to access sensitive customer information for nearly six months without detection [2]. - This breach exposed Coupang to a materially heightened risk of regulatory and legal scrutiny [2]. Group 2: Disclosure Failures - Insiders at Coupang failed to report the data breach in a current report filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), violating applicable reporting rules [2]. - Public statements made by the company were materially false and/or misleading during the relevant times [2].