IIPR, NTRA, and CS Class Actions:


NEW YORK, May 31, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Attorney Advertising — Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following public companies. You can see a copy of the complaints by visiting the links below or you can contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you have suffered damage, you can request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to participate in a recovery does not require you to serve as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other group members in conducting the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of his choice. An investor’s ability to participate in a potential future recovery is not contingent on its serving as lead plaintiff.

Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (: IIPRIIPR-PA)
school lesson: May 7, 2020 – April 13, 2022
Meeting: June 24, 2022
For more information: www.bgandg.com/iipr.
The lawsuit alleges that during the class period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Innovative Industrial Properties’ focus is to be a lender to cannabis businesses and not a real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs); (2) that the true values ​​of Innovative Industrial Properties’ properties are significantly lower than Innovative Industrial Properties represents; (3) existential problems at its top clients; (4) that as a result, its top customers may become unable to make payments to Innovative Industrial Properties and Innovative Industrial Properties would face significant problems in replacing those customers; and (5) as a result, the statements made by the defendants regarding their business, operations and prospects were materially false, misleading and/or lacking a reasonable basis at all relevant times. As the true details emerged, the lawsuit alleges that investors suffered damage.

Natera, Inc. (NTRA)
school lesson: February 26, 2020 – April 19, 2022
Meeting: June 27, 2022
For more information: www.bgandg.com/ntra.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following: (1) Panorama was unreliable and resulted in high rates of false positives; (2) Prospera did not have superior precision compared to competing tests; (3) Defendants’ false and misleading claims about Natera’s technology exposed the Company to significant legal and regulatory risks; (4) Natera has relied on deceptive sales and billing practices to fuel its revenue growth; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the statements made by defendants regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects were unfounded.

Credit Suisse Group AG (: CS)
school lesson: March 19, 2021 – March 25, 2022
Meeting: June 28, 2022
For more information: www.bgandg.com/cs.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and compliance policies throughout the Class Period. In particular, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Credit Suisse had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting; (ii) Credit Suisse’s practice of lending money to Russian oligarchs subject to US and international sanctions created a significant risk of violating rules related to those sanctions and future sanctions; (iii) the foregoing conduct placed the Company at increased risk of increased regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; (iv) the Securitization Arrangement covered loans made by Credit Suisse to Russian oligarchs previously sanctioned by the US; (v) the purpose of the Securitization Agreement was to offload the risks associated with these loans and to mitigate the impact on Credit Suisse of sanctions likely to be imposed by Western nations in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; (vi) Credit Suisse’s requirement that non-participating investors destroy documents related to the securitization transaction was intended to disguise the Company’s non-compliance with US and international sanctions in its lending practices; (vii) the foregoing, once known, would likely subject the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and significant reputational damage; and (viii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | [email protected]



About Author

Comments are closed.