Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Files Securities Class Action Against Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC (OTC: RBGLY)

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ('Scott+Scott'), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC ('Reckitt' or the 'Company') (OTC: RBGLY), and certain of its former and current officers and/or directors (collectively, 'Defendants'). The Class Action asserts claims under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.10b‑5) on behalf of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Reckitt American Depositary Shares ('ADSs') between January 13, 2021, and July 28, 2024, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), and were damaged thereby (the 'Class'). The Class Action filed by Scott+Scott is captioned: Elevator Constructors Union Local No. 1 Annuity & 401(K) Fund v. Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-4708.
Reckitt is a United Kingdom-based, global consumer goods company. To date, over 500 state and federal products liability lawsuits have been filed against Reckitt and its competitor, Abbott Laboratories ('Abbott'), claiming that they failed to adequately warn that premature infants consuming cow milk-based formulas, such as Reckitt's Enfamil and Abbott's Similac, have an increased risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis ('NEC'), a life-threatening intestinal disease that affects premature or low birth weight infants.
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to warn investors and consumers: (1) that preterm infants were at an increased risk of developing NEC by consuming Reckitt's cow's milk-based formula, Enfamil; (2) of the attendant impact on Reckitt's sales of Enfamil and Reckitt's exposure to legal claims; and (3) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The market began to learn the truth on March 15, 2024, when, in the case captioned Watson vs. Mead Johnson Co., Case No. 21-L-1032 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Oct. 28, 2021), a jury in St. Clair County, Illinois, returned a $60 million verdict in the first NEC lawsuit to be tried to a verdict. The jury found that Mead Johnson was negligent and failed to warn the decedent's mother of the increased risk her preterm infant could develop NEC by consuming cow's milk-based formula. On this news, the price of the Company's ADSs fell $1.87, or nearly 14%, from a closing price of $13.31 per share on March 14, 2024, to a closing price of $11.44 per share on March 15, 2024.
Then, on July 29, 2024, the market continued to learn the truth when, in the case captioned Gill v. Abbot Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 2322-CC1251 (Mo. Circ. Ct. Jun. 23, 2023), a jury in St. Louis, Missouri, concluded that Abbott's specialized formula for premature babies led to a baby developing NEC and awarded the plaintiff $495 million. On this news, the price of the Company's ADSs fell $1.02, or nearly 9%, from a closing price of $11.66 per share on July 28, 2024, to a closing price of $10.64 per share on July 29, 2024.
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON AUGUST 4, 2025
If you purchased Reckitt ADSs during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the 'Class' and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than August 4, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member.
If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, please contact attorney Nicholas Bruno at (888) 398-9312 or at nbruno@scott-scott.com.
What Can You Do?
You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action.
About Scott+Scott
Scott+Scott is an international law firm known for its expertise in representing corporate clients, institutional investors, businesses, and individuals harmed by anticompetitive conduct or other forms of wrongdoing, including securities law and shareholder violations. With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices in the United States, as well as three offices in Europe, our advocacy has resulted in significant monetary settlements on behalf of our clients, along with other forms of relief. Our highly experienced attorneys have been recognized for being among the top financial lawyers in 2024 by Lawdragon, WWL: Commercial Litigation 2024, and Legal 500 in Antitrust Civil Litigation, and have received top Chambers 2024 rankings. In addition, we have been repeatedly recognized by the American Antitrust Institute for the successful litigation of high-stakes anticompetitive claims in the United States.
To learn more about Scott+Scott, our attorneys, or complex case resolution, please visit www.scott-scott.com.
This may be considered Attorney Advertising.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Wire

38 minutes ago

• Business Wire

INVESTOR ALERT: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that Apple Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit

SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Apple class action lawsuit. Captioned Tucker v. Apple Inc., No. 25-cv-05197 (N.D. Cal.), the Apple class action lawsuit charges Apple and certain of Apple's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Apple class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Apple class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Apple misstated the time it would take to integrate the advanced artificial intelligence ('AI')-based Siri features into its devices; (ii) accordingly, it was highly unlikely that these features would be available for the iPhone 16; (iii) the lack of such advanced AI-based features would hurt iPhone 16 sales; and (iv) as a result, Apple's business and/or financial prospects were overstated. The Apple class action lawsuit further alleges that on March 7, 2025, Apple announced it was indefinitely delaying promised updates to its Siri digital assistant. The Apple class action lawsuit alleges that on this news, the price of Apple stock fell. Then, on March 12, 2025, the Apple class action lawsuit further alleges that Morgan Stanley published a report in which analyst Erik Woodring lowered his price target on Apple from $275 to $252, asserting that the delay in introducing advanced Siri features would impact iPhone upgrade cycles throughout 2025 and 2026, and presenting evidence that roughly 50% of iPhone owners who did not upgrade to the iPhone 16 attributed their decision to such delays. On this news, the price of Apple stock fell further, according to the complaint. Thereafter, the Apple class action lawsuit alleges that on April 3, 2025, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled 'Apple and Amazon Promised Us Revolutionary AI. We're Still Waiting,' which stated, in relevant part, that '[w]ith 'more personal' Siri . . . , the tech giant[] marketed features [it] ha[s] yet to deliver,' and suggested that while 'this is challenging technology and the cost of getting it wrong is devastatingly high, especially for [a] compan[y] like Apple . . . that must build trust with customers,' 'the same responsibility applies to marketing: They shouldn't announce products until they're sure they can deliver them.' On this news, the price of Apple stock fell more than 7%, according to the complaint. Finally, on June 9, 2025, Apple hosted its Worldwide Developer Conference ('WWDC'), almost one year to the day after first announcing the suite of supposedly forthcoming Apple Intelligence features at the 2024 WWDC, and Apple failed to announce any new updates regarding advanced Siri features, according to the complaint. On this news, the price of Apple stock fell further, according to the complaint. Last year, Robbins Geller secured a $490 million recovery in a securities fraud class action case alleging Apple CEO Timothy Cook made false and misleading statements to investors – the third-largest securities class action recovery ever in the Northern District of California and the fifth-largest such recovery ever in the Ninth Circuit. In the order granting final approval of the settlement, the court recognized the 'skill and strategic vision, as well as the risk taken by [Robbins Geller]' in securing the sizeable recovery while efficiently managing the 'uniquely complex' aspects of the case against 'highly sophisticated and experienced counsel and defendants.' Learn more by clicking here. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Apple securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Apple class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Apple class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Apple class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Apple class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:

Business Upturn

12 hours ago

• Business Upturn

INVESTOR DEADLINE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (RCAT) Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Investor Class Action Lawsuit

SAN DIEGO, June 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCAT) securities between March 18, 2022 and January 15, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until Tuesday, July 22, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit. Captioned Olsen v. Red Cat Holdings, Inc. , No. 25-cv-05427 (D.N.J.), the Red Cat class action lawsuit charges Red Cat as well as certain of Red Cat's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [email protected]. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Red Cat, together with its subsidiaries, provides products and solutions to drone industry. Red Cat's products include, among others, the 'Teal 2' drone, a small, unmanned aircraft system designed to purportedly 'Dominate the Night' during nighttime military operations. The Red Cat class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Red Cat's Salt Lake City facility's production capacity, and defendants' progress in developing the same, was overstated; and (ii) the overall value of Red Cat's Short Range Reconnaissance Program of Record Tranche 2 contract (the 'SRR Contract') was overstated. The Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that on July 27, 2023, Red Cat revealed that its Salt Lake City facility could only currently produce 100 drones per month, the facility was still being built, refined, and expanded, and that construction of the facility was only 'substantially completed' and potentially could reach a production capacity of 1,000 drones per month over the next 2 to 3 years, but only with additional capital investments and manufacturing efficiencies realized. On this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell nearly 9%, according to the complaint. Then, on September 23, 2024, the Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that Red Cat announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025, reporting losses per share of $0.17, missing consensus estimates by $0.09, and revenue of $2.8 million, missing consensus estimates by $1.07 million. According to the complaint, Red Cat further disclosed that Red Cat had spent 'the past four months . . . retooling [the Salt Lake City facility] and preparing for high volume production,' while admitting that a 'pause in manufacturing of Teal 2 and building Army prototypes impacted Teal 2 sales' because, among other things, Red Cat 'couldn't produce and sell Teal 2 units while retooling [its] factory.' The Red Cat class action lawsuit alleges that on this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell more than 25%. Finally, the Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 16, 2025, Kerrisdale Capital published a report alleging that '[t]he SRR contract that Red Cat won in November and preemptively announced without the Army's permission is much smaller and less favorable than management as intimated,' and that '[i]t's highly implausible that a mass-production facility for manufacturing drones has been built at any point in the last two years for less than $1 million.' On this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell more than 21% over two trading sessions, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Red Cat securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Red Cat class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Red Cat class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Red Cat class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 [email protected]

Business Upturn

17 hours ago

• Business Upturn

OGN FRAUD ALERT: Organon & Co. Investors are Reminded of Ongoing Securities Fraud Class Action — Contact BFA Law by July 22 Legal Deadline (NYSE:OGN)

NEW YORK, June 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Organon & Co. (NYSE: OGN) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Organon you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting Investors have until July 22, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased Organon securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and is captioned: Hauser v. Organon & Co., et al. , No. 25-cv-05322. Why was Organon Sued for Securities Fraud? Organon is a global healthcare company focused on women's health that has historically rewarded its shareholders with a healthy dividend. In October 2024, Organon completed a $1.2 billion acquisition of Dermavant, a biopharmaceutical company focused on dermatological conditions. As alleged, while the acquisition increased Organon's debt, the Company assured investors it would maintain its dividend, which Organon asserted was its '#1 capital allocation priority.' In truth, Organon had shifted its capital allocation priority after the Dermavant acquisition to focus on reducing its debt, ultimately leading the Company to severely cut its dividend. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On May 1, 2025, Organon announced that management reset the Company's dividend payout from $0.28 per share to $0.02 per share. Organon's CEO explained that the Company 'reset our capital allocation priorities to accelerate progress towards deleveraging' and that '[b]y deleveraging more rapidly, we will continue to strengthen the future prospects of the company.' Organon's CFO added, '[t]he biggest issues we face . . . relate to managing our leverage and relate to growth. And we need capital to solve both of those issues, and so returning capital to shareholders is right now, less of a priority.' On this news, the price of Organon stock declined roughly 27%, from $12.93 per share on April 30, 2025, to $9.45 per share on May 1, 2025. Click here if you suffered losses: What Can You Do? If you invested in Organon you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: Or contact:Ross Shikowitz [email protected] 212-789-3619