SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Barr Law Group Investigating GOGO, GOEV, ACIC, and FIII; Shareholders are Encouraged to Contact the Firm
May 25, 2021 04:00 ET | Source: Barr Law Group Barr Law Group San Diego, California, UNITED STATES
SAN DIEGO, May 25, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) National law firm Barr Law Group is investigating the actions of the officers and board of directors of Gogo Inc., Canoo Inc., Atlas Crest Investment Corp., and Forum Merger III Corporation. If you are a current owner of shares of any of these stocks, contact leo@barrlaw.com or call (619) 400-4966.
Gogo Inc. (NASDAQ: GOGO)
Accused of Misleading Investors
Barr Law Group is investigating Gogo Inc. regarding possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of law by the company’s officers and directors. On April 26, 2021, U.S. District Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an order den
Share this article
Share this article
NEW YORK, May 25, 2021 /PRNewswire/ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Canoo, Inc. (formerly known as Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV) ( Canoo or the Company ) (NASDAQ: GOEV; GOEVW; HCAC; HCACW) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-03080, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Canoo common stock and/or warrants from August 18, 2020, through and including March 29, 2021, (the Class Period ), seeking to recover damages pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act ), 15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the Class ).
Toll free (844) 887-9500
Canoo Holdings Ltd. ( Canoo Holdings ) was an electric vehicle company that touted a unique business model that defies traditional ownership to put customers first. On or about December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a public entity via merger with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving entity named Canoo.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Canoo had decreased its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers through a subscription model; (2) Canoo would deemphasize its engineering services business; (3) contrary to prior statements, Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously announced partnership with Hyundai; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants positive statements about Canoo s business,
We have two more interviews coming up with
Veo co-founder and CEO Candice Xie and
Refraction AI co-founder Matthew Johnson-Roberson.
Finally, we published a piece that examines voice recognition in vehicles, a marketplace that has tech giants like Google and Amazon competing for space with a few up and comers and established suppliers like Cerence.
A friendly reminder that my email inbox is always open and yes, I do read your messages. Email me at kirsten.korosec@techcrunch.com to share thoughts, criticisms, offer up opinions or tips. You can also send a direct message to me at Twitter @kirstenkorosec.
Share:
LOS ANGELES, May 24, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
SOS Limited (NYSE:SOS)
Class Period: July 22, 2020 – February 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline:
June 1, 2021
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) SOS had misrepresented the true natu