BOSTON, MA / ACCESSWIRE / August 30, 2019 / Thornton Law Firm LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Textron Inc. (“Textron” or the “Company”) (NYSE:TXT) alleging that Textron violated the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased Textron stock between January 31, 2018 and October 17, 2018, and are interested in participating the lawsuit as a lead plaintiff, are encouraged to contact the Thornton Law Firm and learn more about the case at www.tenlaw.com/cases/Textron. Investors may also email the firm to obtain information at shareholder@tenlaw.com or call (617) 531-3917.

Textron is a global manufacturer and distributor of small aircrafts and recreational vehicles. On March 6, 2017, Textron expanded its recreational vehicle business by acquiring Arctic Cat Inc. (“Arctic Cat”). Throughout the Class Period, Textron allegedly repeatedly touted Arctic Cat as an important growth business for the Company, reassuring investors about dealer demand, end-market sales and earnings prospects for its Arctic Cat products.

Notwithstanding these positive representations to the market, Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that: (1) end-market sales of Arctic Cat products were slowing, resulting in a massive glut of old Arctic Cat inventory on dealers’ floors; (2) in order to clear out this old inventory, the Company provided significant price discounts, which negatively impacted Textron’s earnings; (3) as a result, Textron’s positive statements about Arctic Cat’s business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading.

The truth about Arctic Cat’s inventory problems was revealed on October 18, 2018, when Textron reported weak third quarter 2018 earnings and cut its full-year 2018 forecast. The Company blamed the shortfall on heavy discounts issued by Textron to clear out old Arctic Cat inventory. Analysts immediately lowered their price targets on Textron stock citing the inventory concerns at Arctic Cat. On this news, Textron’s stock fell $7.29 or 11.25 percent, to close at $57.49 on October 18, 2018, erasing $1.8 billion from its market capitalization.

Investors who purchased TXT securities between January 31, 2018 and October 17, 2018 are encouraged to contact the Thornton Law Firm’s shareholder rights team at www.tenlaw.com/cases/Textron. Interested Textron shareholders have until October 21, 2019 to apply to be lead plaintiff. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.

The Thornton Law Firm’s securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of shareholders. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

SOURCE: Thornton Law Firm LLP

ReleaseID: 558002

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / August 30, 2019 / Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (OTCMKT:CURLF)
Class Period: November 21, 2018 – July 22, 2019
Deadline: October 4, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/curlf

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:(1) Curaleaf, on its website and social media pages, marketed its CBD products to be used as drugs and dietary supplements, contrary to law; (2) Curaleaf also sold unapproved animal drugs on its website; (3) such conduct would result in a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”); and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

2U, Inc. (NASDAQ:TWOU)
Class Period: February 25, 2019 – July 30, 2019,
Deadline: October 7, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/twou

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:(1) 2U faced increasing competition in online education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2) 2U faced certain program-specific issues that negatively impacted its performance; (3) as a result, the Company’s business model was not sustainable; (4) 2U would slow its program launches; and (5) consequently, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Evolent Health, Inc. (NYSE:EVH)
Class Period: March 3, 2017 – May 28, 2019
Deadline: October 7, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/evh

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:(1) Evolent’s partnership model did not align the Company’s interests with those of its partners, as the model was designed to inflate the Company’s revenue by extracting enormous administrative and management fees at the expense of its operating partners such as Passport; (2) Passport was struggling financially, particularly after Kentucky cut its reimbursement rates, and the partnership between Evolent and Passport was becoming increasingly unsustainable; (3) Evolent was draining Passport of functions, employees and money, to such an extent that Passport was left on the verge of insolvency; (4) Passport was conducting a bidding process for several months to sell itself to prevent liquidation; and (5) consequently, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz

212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com

SOURCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC

ReleaseID: 557352

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / August 30, 2019 / Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. (“Helius” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:HSDT) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Helius securities from November 9, 2017 and April 10, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm’s site: www.bgandg.com/hsdt.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On January 25, 2019, Helius said that it had received a request for additional data and information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) related to the its request for de novo classification and 510(k) clearance of its Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator (PoNS™) device. Following this news, Helius stock dropped $0.48 per share, or roughly 6%, to close at $7.13 on January 25, 2019.

On April 10, 2019, Helius disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had declined the Company’s request for De Novo classification and clearance of its Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator device. The FDA stated that it lacked sufficient data to determine the relative contributions of the device and physical therapy in clinical studies. Following this news, Helius stock dropped $4.11 per share, or more than 66%, to close at $2.10 on April 10, 2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the clinical study on the use of PoNS did not produce statistically significant results regarding the effectiveness of the treatment; (2) that, as a result, the clinical study did not support the Company’s application for regulatory clearance; (3) that, as a result, the Company was unlikely to receive regulatory approval of PoNS; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm’s site: www.bgandg.com/hsdt or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Helius you have until September 9, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm’s expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz

212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com

SOURCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC

ReleaseID: 557337

BIRMINGHAM, AL / ACCESSWIRE / August 30, 2019 / Alabama physician Chris Endfinger, MD completes his fourth-time medical board recertification in family medicine.

A respected emergency room physician from Birmingham, Alabama, Chris Endfinger, MD has once again successfully completed and received his medical board recertification in family medicine. Marking Dr. Endfinger’s fourth time passing the boards, the emergency room doctor is now all-set to continue practicing straight through until 2029.

“I’ve recently passed the boards for my fourth time,” explains Dr. Endfinger, “since graduating from the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine back in 1993.”

This fourth-time medical board recertification, says the doctor, sees him happily certified through 2029. “With my most recent medical board recertification in family medicine now complete, I’m good for another ten years,” adds the Birmingham-based doctor.

Chris Endfinger, MD has acquired more than 20 years of experience in medicine, including two high-pressure years as an emergency room director, since completing his medical residency in 1996. Dr. Endfinger goes on to explain that he completed his residency via the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine’s Family Medicine Residency Program where, he says, he was named chief resident. “I was also named, I’m proud to say,” he adds, “the university’s intern of the year in 1993, three years prior.”

Since then, and in addition to more than two decades in practice, the popular emergency room doctor has also completed a number of missionary trips to Honduras and plans to return again soon. “Even today, whether at home or overseas, I continue to enjoy learning new procedures and treatments, particularly in emergency medicine,” reveals Dr. Endfinger.

A member of Birmingham’s CrossBridge Church of Christ, father of two Dr. Endfinger has been happily married for 27 years. The family, he says, has two much-loved dogs, a cat, four chickens, and a large saltwater aquarium. When not taking care of his patients, family man Dr. Endfinger enjoys spending time with his wife and children, reading, fishing, and working out.

“I’m also working on my Spanish fluency,” he adds, wrapping up, “in order to help me to continue to serve my patients to the absolute best of my ability.”

Chris Endfinger, MD graduated from David Lipscomb University, a private Christian liberal arts university in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1989 with a degree in biochemistry and minors in math and French. Four years later, in 1993, Dr. Endfinger then graduated from the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine before completing his residency in 1996. A keen supporter of a number of charities and nonprofit organizations, good causes backed by Dr. Endfinger include Christian humanitarian aid child sponsorship initiative Compassion International and Fight For Life in Birmingham.

CONTACT:
Caroline Hunter
Web Presence, LLC
+1 786-233-8220

SOURCE: Web Presence

ReleaseID: 557999

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / August 30, 2019 / Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Carbonite, Inc. (NASDAQ:CARB)
Class Period: February 7, 2019 – July 25, 2019
Deadline: September 30, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/carb

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:(1) Carbonite’s Server Backup VM Edition was of poor quality and technologically flawed; (2) Carbonite was receiving poor reviews and complaints from customers about the Server Backup VM Edition; (3) the poor quality and technological flaws of the Server Backup VM Edition were acting as a “disruptive” factor throughout the Carbonite salesforce and keeping that sales organization from closing opportunistically on several larger deals during fiscal 2019; and (4) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Cardinal Health, Inc. (NASDAQ:CAH)
Class Period: March 2, 2015 – May 2, 2018
Deadline: September 30, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cah

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements by stating that Cordis Corp., a medical device manufacturer that Cardinal Health acquired in March 2015, would benefit from its advanced inventory management and supply chain information technology solutions. The complaint also alleges that Defendants misleadingly represented that Cardinal Health properly “reserve[d] for inventory obsolescence” and that “[i]nventories presented in the consolidated balance sheets [were] net of reserves for excess and obsolete inventory.”

Just Energy Group Inc. (NYSE:JE)
Class Period: November 9, 2017 – July 23, 2019
Deadline: September 30, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/je

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company experienced customer enrollment and nonpayment issues; (2) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur an impairment charge to its accounts receivable; (3) that, as a result, the Company lacked adequate internal control over its financial reporting; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz

212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com

SOURCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC

ReleaseID: 557349

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / August 30, 2019 / Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (“Diebold” or the “Company”) (NYSE:DBD) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Diebold securities from May 4, 2017 and July 4, 2017, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm’s site: www.bgandg.com/dbd.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing delays in systems rollouts as well as a longer customer decision-making process and order-to-revenue conversion cycle; (2) the foregoing issues were negatively impacting the Company’s services business and operations; and (3) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 5, 2017, Diebold issued a press release titled “Diebold Nixdorf Adjusts 2017 Financial Outlook” (the “July 2017 Press Release”). The July 2017 Press Release disclosed that the Company expected a wider net loss than indicated in its prior guidance for fiscal 2017, from a range of $50 to $75 million to a range of $110 to $125 million net loss. Diebold attributed the lowered expectations to a delay in systems rollouts as well as a longer customer decision-making process and order-to-revenue conversion cycle. Following this news, Diebold’s stock price fell $6.40 per share, or nearly 23%, to close at $21.60 per share on July 5, 2017.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm’s site: www.bgandg.com/dbd or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Diebold you have until September 3, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm’s expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz

212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com

SOURCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC

ReleaseID: 557334

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / August 30, 2019 / Compare-autoinsurance.org has launched a new blog post that explains which drivers pay the cheapest car insurance rates.

For more info and free auto insurance quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.org/drivers-of-what-age-groups-pay-the-least-on-car-insurance/

One very important factor used by car insurance companies to determine their customers’ car insurance premiums is the age of the customers. People in their 40s and 50s are usually paying the lowest insurance rates. Drivers from those age groups are considered to be among the safest and most experienced drivers on the road. Also, they file fewer claims than older or younger drivers. After the age of 25, the car insurance premiums will begin to drop and they will start to rise once again once the drivers enter their 70s.

Besides age, the next major factors can affect the price of insurance:

Gender. Young male drivers will pay more on their premiums compared to young female drivers because they are more likely to file an auto insurance claim. On the other hand, male drivers who are in their 40s, 50s, and 60s are filing fewer claims than female drivers from the same age groups and for this reason, they will pay less on car insurance.
Driving record. Drivers who have multiple traffic violations will pay more on insurance premiums than drivers with a clean driving record. Car insurance claims, speeding, at-fault accidents and other traffic violations can increase the price of insurance.
Address. Drivers who live in areas with higher rates of accidents, insurance claims, car thefts, or vandalism will be charged extra on their car insurance premiums.
Vehicle value. An $80,000 vehicle will cost more to repair than a $15,000 vehicle, and this is the reason why expensive vehicles cost more to insure.
Safety rating. Safer vehicles are cheaper to insure. Passengers of a safe vehicle are less likely to suffer severe injuries in a collision and that means the insurer will save money on medical bills.
Mileage. The annual mileage is one of the most important factors analyzed by the insurers to determine the insurance rates. Drivers who use their cars to commute to work will pay more on their insurance. Car insurance companies consider that persons who stay more on the roads are more likely to be involved in accidents.
Discounts. Drivers who are in their 40s and 50s can take advantage of several discounts such as bundling discounts and safe driving discounts.
Coverage limits. Drivers who are in their 40s and 50s are likely to have higher coverage limits and additional insurance options. For these reasons, the price of insurance will be higher.

For additional info, money-saving tips and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.org/

Compare-autoinsurance.org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.

“Drivers who are in their 40s and 50s are seen as more responsible on the roads and they are less likely to file car insurance claims. For these reasons, car insurance providers are charging them with the lowest car insurance premiums”, said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company.

Company Name: Internet Marketing Company
Person for contact Name: Gurgu C
Phone Number: (818) 359-3898
Email: cgurgu@internetmarketingcompany.biz
Website: https://compare-autoinsurance.org/

SOURCE: Internet Marketing Company

ReleaseID: 557982

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / August 30, 2019 / Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Oasmia Pharmaceutical AB (NASDAQ:OASM)
Class Period: October 23, 2015 – July 9, 2019
Deadline: September 27, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/oasm

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Oasmia engaged in improper related-party transactions with Alceco International S.A. and Ardenia Investment LTD, which were controlled by Defendant Aleksov and his former father-in-law; (2) due to those transactions, millions of Swedish kronor were not accounted for in Oasmia’s books; (3) transactions concerning Oasmia’s patents were also “carried out in a doubtful way;” and (4) as a result of the aforementioned misconduct, defendants’ statements about Oasmia’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Eagle Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ:EGBN)
Class Period: March 2, 2015 – July 17, 2019
Deadline: September 27, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/egbn

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:(1) Eagle’s internal controls and procedures and compliance policies were inadequate; (2) the foregoing shortcoming created a foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny and the need for Eagle to undertake its own internal investigations; and (3) as a result, Eagle’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

3M Company (NYSE:MMM)
Class Period: February 9, 2017 – May 28, 2019
Deadline: September 27, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/mmm

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:(1) 3M’s vast internal evidence dating back decades confirmed that man-made chemicals or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) are toxic (which was first publicly revealed in February 2018 by Minnesota’s Attorney General); (2) 3M had a long history of suppressing negative information and/or damaging data about PFAS; (3) 3M had significant legal exposure to state, county, and local governments and individuals around the country as a result of its knowledge and intentional concealment of the toxic harm caused by the use of PFAS; and (4) as a result, 3M’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com

SOURCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC

ReleaseID: 557346

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / August 30, 2019 / Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Acer Therapeutics Inc. (“Acer” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:ACER) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Acer securities purchased between September 25, 2017 and June 24, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm’s site: www.bgandg.com/acer.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Acer lacked sufficient data to support filing EDSIVO’s NDA with the FDA for the treatment of vEDS; (2) the Ong Trial was an inadequate and ill-controlled clinical study by FDA standards, and was comprised of an insufficiently small group size to support EDSIVO’s NDA; (3) consequently, the FDA would likely reject EDSIVO’s NDA; and (4) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 25, 2019, Acer issued a press release titled “Acer Therapeutics Receives Complete Response Letter from U.S. FDA for use of EDSIVO™ (celiprolol) in vEDS Patients” (the “June 2019 Press Release”). In the June 2019 Press Release, Acer disclosed receipt of a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the FDA regarding its NDA for EDSIVO for the treatment of vEDS. Acer advised investors that “[t]he CRL states that it will be necessary to conduct an adequate and well-controlled trial to determine whether celiprolol reduces the risk of clinical events in patients with vEDS” and that “Acer plans to request a meeting to discuss the FDA’s response.” That same day, news sources reported that the small group size of the Ong Trial had raised questions among experts about the adequacy of EDSIVO’s trial results. Following this news, Acer’s stock price fell $15.16 per share, or 78.63%, to close at $4.12 per share on June 25, 2019.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm’s site: www.bgandg.com/acer or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Acer you have until August 30, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm’s expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz

212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com

SOURCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC

ReleaseID: 557331