Latest news with #Defendants'
Malaysian Reserve
an hour ago
- Business
- Malaysian Reserve
Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds Red Cat Investors of the Pending Class Action Lawsuit with a Lead Plaintiff Deadline of July 21, 2025
If you purchased or acquired securities in Red Cat between March 18, 2022 and January 15, 2025 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [You may also click here for additional information] NEW YORK, June 20, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Red Cat Holdings, Inc. ('Red Cat' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: RCAT) and reminds investors of the July 21, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) the Salt Lake City Facility's production capacity, and Defendants' progress in developing the same, was overstated; (2) the overall value of the SRR Contract was overstated; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. In March 2022, Red Cat announced that Teal had been selected by the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Unit and the U.S. Army to compete in Tranche 2 of the U.S. Army's Short Range Reconnaissance Program of Record (the 'SRR Program'). The SRR Program is a U.S. Army initiative to provide a small, rucksack-portable sUAS to U.S. Army platoons. At all relevant times, Defendants suggested or otherwise asserted that the SRR Program's Tranche 2 contract (the 'SRR Contract') was worth potentially hundreds of millions to over a billion dollars in contract revenues. In March 2023, Company management confirmed that '[t]he Salt Lake City factory is complete and ready to go' and '[w]e now have the capacity to produce thousands of drones per month.' The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Salt Lake City Facility's production capacity, and Defendants' progress in developing the same, was overstated; (ii) the overall value of the SRR Contract was overstated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 27, 2023, Red Cat hosted a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss its financial and operating results for its fiscal year 2023. During the call, Defendants revealed that the Salt Lake City Facility could only currently produce 100 drones per month, and that the facility was still being built, refined, and expanded. Red Cat filed an annual report on Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the same day, which likewise reported that construction of the facility was only 'substantially completed' and potentially could reach a production capacity of one thousand drones per month over the next 2 to 3 years, but only with additional capital investments and manufacturing efficiencies realized. Following these disclosures, Red Cat's stock price fell $0.10 per share, or 8.93%, to close at $1.02 per share on July 28, 2023. On September 23, 2024, Red Cat issued a press release announcing its financial and operating results for the first quarter of its fiscal year 2025. Among other results, the Company reported 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. On a subsequent conference call that Red Cat hosted with investors and analysts the same day to discuss these results, Company management 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 our Army prototypes impacted Teal 2 sales' because, inter alia, Red Cat 'couldn't produce and sell Teal 2 units[] while retooling [its] factory.' On this news, Red Cat's stock price fell $0.80 per share, or 25.32%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $2.36 per share on September 25, 2024. On November 19, 2024, Red Cat issued a press release announcing that it had won the SRR Contract. On a subsequent conference call that Red Cat hosted with investors and analysts the same day to discuss the contract win, Defendants continued to assert that the SRR Contract was worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars, while expressing their confidence that Red Cat could realize up to $50 million to $79.5 million in revenue from the SRR Contract during it fiscal year 2025 alone. Then, on January 16, 2025, Kerrisdale Capital ('Kerrisdale') published a report (the 'Kerrisdale Report') alleging, inter alia, that Defendants had overstated the value of the SRR Contract, which Kerrisdale found was only worth approximately $20 million to $25 million based on U.S. Army budget documents. The Kerrisdale Report also alleged that Defendants had been misleading investors about the Salt Lake City Facility's production capacity for years, while also raising concerns about the timing of executive departures and insider transactions that took place shortly after Red Cat announced it had won the SRR Contract. On this news, Red Cat's stock price fell $2.35 per share, or 21.54%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $8.56 per share on January 17, 2025. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Red Cat's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Red Cat class action, go to or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, on X, or on Facebook. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP ( Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner.
Business Wire
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Wire
Deadline Soon: NET Power Inc. (NPWR) Investors Who Lost Money Urged To Contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz About Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to participate as a lead plaintiff in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who acquired NET Power Inc. ('Net Power' or the 'Company') (NYSE: NPWR) securities between June 9, 2023 and March 7, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'). IF YOU ARE AN INVESTOR WHO LOST MONEY ON NET POWER INC. (NPWR), CLICK HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On November 14, 2023, before market hours, Net Power released its third quarter 2023 financial results, disclosing that due to 'tightness in the global supply chain,' it would be 'incorporating a 12-month cushion into [its] expected schedule' for its first utility-scale plant, Project Permian. The Company stated that it was 'now expecting to achieve initial power generation sometime between the second half of 2027 and first half of 2028,' compared to the initial schedule of having the plant operational by 2026. On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $2.47, or 18.5%, to close at $10.85 per share on November 14, 2023, thereby injuring investors. Then, on March 10, 2025, Net Power released its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, disclosing the Company had 'finalized the Front-End Engineering and Design (FEED) for Project Permian' but the 'cost estimate was significantly higher than expected and, as a result, the Company has paused long-lead releases for the project.' Specifically, the Company revealed it is 'estimating total installed cost will be $1.7 billion to $2 billion.' On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $2.18, or 31.5%, to close at $4.75 per share on March 10, 2025. Then, on April 15, 2025, Net Power announced that its President and Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer would depart the Company. On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $0.13, or 5.8%, to close at $2.13 per share on April 16, 2025, thereby injuring investors further. What Is The Lawsuit About? 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) Net Power was unlikely to complete Project Permian on schedule, and the project was likely to be significantly more expensive than Defendants had represented, because of, inter alia, supply chain issues and numerous site- and region-specific challenges; (2) accordingly, Defendants' projections regarding the time and capital needed to complete Project Permian were unrealistic; (3) the increased time and capital needed to complete Project Permian were likely to have a significant negative impact on the Company's business and financial results; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired NET Power securities between June 9, 2023 and March 7, 2025, the deadline to seek appointment as the lead plaintiff in the securities fraud class action is June 17, 2025. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact us: Frank R. Cruz The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800, Century City, California 90067 Email us at: info@ Call us at: 310-914-5007 Visit our website at Follow us for updates on Twitter: If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Ex-‘Doctor Odyssey' Crew Members Sue Disney, Fox Claiming Sexual Harassment And Wrongful Termination
Three former members of the props department on ABC's medical drama Doctor Odyssey filed a lawsuit Friday against the network's parent company Disney and producer 20th Television's parent Fox, alleging they were subject to sexual harassment on the set of the series and eventually retaliated against and terminated when they complained about it. The suit, filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court, says the plaintiffs — Caroline Mack, Alicia Haverland and Ava Steinbrenner — were hired in late spring/early summer 2024 to work in the new series' props department. The defendants then hired Tammie Patton as Prop Master and her husband Tyler Patton as Assistant Prop Master who supervised and directed the plaintiffs in their work. More from Deadline 'Doctor Odyssey' Finale Upbeat With No Hint Of A Future On The High Seas ABC Chief Provides 'Doctor Odyssey' Status Update Marvel Skipping Comic-Con's Hall H This Year The suit claims the props department 'was an unlawful den of sexual harassment and retaliation,' and that the plaintiffs were subject to 'an an unchecked campaign of sexual harassment for months' by 'Taylor Patton and his male buddies.' The behavior cited in the lawsuit (read it here) allegedly included 'sexual jokes, innuendos, comments, sexual gestures and images, and unwanted touching including, but not limited to: (i) regularly giving Plaintiffs unwanted, lingering hugs; (ii) touching one of the Plaintiff's thighs; (iii) frequently placing his hands on one of the Plaintiff's lower back; (iv) placing his arms around Plaintiffs' necks and forcing them to 'walk with him;' and (v) openly grabbing a visiting female employee's buttocks on set.' The suit said the plaintiffs eventually went to senior production members to report the misconduct including Tammie Patton, and say they were retaliated against by being forced to do demeaning tasks, and having their jobs threatened. 'Even though Defendants' Human Resources Department and Senior Management assigned to Dr. Odyssey were fully aware of Tyler Patton's inappropriate behavior and the retaliation his wife/Plaintiffs' boss Tammie Patton engaged in, they took no action to prevent it,' says the suit. 'In fact, Defendants' human resources was asleep at the wheel and permitted the frustrated managers/producers on set to handle these conflicts on their own. This led to Plaintiffs suffering additional mistreatment, retaliation, and emotional distress.' In the end, the plaintiffs say that rather than taking action against the alleged harassers, the defendants informed the entire props department in August that it was being terminated. That became effective at the end of September. 'Defendants took the 'easy' way out choosing to eliminate not only the wrongdoers — Prop Master Tammie Patton and Assistant Prop Master Tyler Patton — but all of the remaining employees in the Props Department who had been subject to the wrongdoers' misconduct,' the suit says. As a result, the plaintiffs are claiming wrongful termination in addition to claims of sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. The suit also cites negligent hiring on the part of Disney, Fox and co-defendant Entertainment Partners, saying the defendants knew Tyler Patton had been subject to similar accusations and lawsuit on the set of the mid-2000s Fox medical drama series House. 'Notably, there was some overlap between employees on Dr. Odyssey and employees on the set of House,' the suit says. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial. Doctor Odyssey, from Ryan Murphy and starring Joshua Jackson and Don Johnson, debuted its first season in September and is on the bubble for a Season 2 pickup. It was not on ABC's fall 2025 schedule when that was announced earlier this month at the broadcast upfronts. Best of Deadline Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds 'Poker Face' Season 2 Guest Stars: From Katie Holmes To Simon Hellberg 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Urges Judge Not To Dismiss CBS '60 Minutes' Lawsuit As Paramount And POTUS Teams Talk Settlement
Donald Trump's legal team made its latest filing in his lawsuit against CBS as settlement negotiations continue between network parent Paramount and the president's team. Sources said that an opening offer to Trump has been made, in the eight figures, but that the discussions are still in the early stages. More from Deadline Donald Trump's Tariffs Deemed Unlawful & Blocked By Trade Court; White House Appeals Instantly Elon Musk Bids Farewell As Official Trump Administration Role Comes To An End Fox News Continued To See Audience Growth In May While MSNBC And CNN Posted Double-Digit Declines Vs. 2024 Meanwhile, Trump's team faced a deadline on Wednesday to file a response to CBS' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Trump sued the network over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris, part of an election special that was broadcast in October. In a preview of the segment that aired on Face the Nation on October 6, Harris was shown giving an answer to a question about Israel-Gaza that was different than the one that was featured on the 60 Minutes broadcast the next day. Trump claimed that the broadcast was deceptive in a way to boost Harris' electoral chances. His amended, $20 billion lawsuit, filed in February, claimed violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the federal Lanham Act, laws typically used by consumers against false advertising. Trump contended that the interview 'improperly diverted' traffic from his media platforms, including Truth Social. In a motion to dismiss, CBS argued that the 60 Minutes preview and broadcast were not commercial speech, but news programming protected by the First Amendment. The network also has denied that the 60 Minutes edits were deceptive and merely made for time constraints, noting that the first part of Harris' answer was shown on the Face the Nation preview and the second for the show's broadcast. In their latest filing, made overnight to a federal district court in Texas, Trump's legal team argued that determining 'that the First Amendment precludes the instant lawsuit would put the cart before the horse—the First Amendment is no shield to news distortion.' Trump's lawyers wrote that 'because they were misled by Defendants' false advertising and tampering with the entirety of the Interview, viewers withheld attention from President Trump and Truth Social by directing their attention to Defendants' media platforms. This increased Defendants' engagement, viewership, and advertising revenue, and decreased the value of President Trump's ownership in TMTG and other media holdings.' Read Trump's response to CBS in 60 Minutes lawsuit. They further added that Trump 'was forced to re-direct significant time, money, and effort to correcting the public record regarding the content of the Interview and Election Special.' A number of legal experts see the lawsuit as meritless. Katie Couric, the former anchor of CBS Evening News, called it 'bulls—' in a recent interview with Jim Acosta, the former CNN host and correspondent. And based on a transcript of the unedited interview, neither part of Harris' answer is clear. But Paramount Global is seeking Trump administration approval for its merger with Skydance Media, and a settlement of the lawsuit is viewed as a way to secure a green light for the transaction. In his interview with Harris, 60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker asked her why Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not listening to the Biden administration. Harris replied, 'Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.' The second part of Harris' answer was shown on the 60 Minutes broadcast; the first part was shown on Face the Nation. But in arguing that they were harmed by the broadcast, Trump's team wrote that merely 'having access to Defendants' services does not mean that a consumer would have watched the Election Special even without Defendants' deceptive advertising of it. Harris's meandering answer in the Preview was engaging in much the same way one cannot look away from a car crash happening in slow motion.' The Face the Nation preview was aired during the show, not during an advertising break. But Trump's team argued that CBS' legal team, in their motion to dismiss, 'neglects to reckon with modern forms of advertising monetization; the consumers' attention is the product which content creators vie for, which they can then monetize with advertisements.' In another filing, Trump's legal team also argued that the Texas court, rather than New York, was a proper venue for the litigation, as CBS had argued that the president was engaged in forum shopping. In his amended lawsuit, Trump added a resident of the state as plaintiff – Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), the former White House physician. The federal judge assigned to the case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, was nominated by Trump in his first term. During Joe Biden's presidency, conservative groups sought to file cases in his Amarillo jurisdiction, seeking favorable rulings, per the Texas Tribune. In April, Kacsmaryk noted that he already had granted five deadline extensions for filings in the case, and that any further extensions would have to 'demonstrate good cause.' Best of Deadline 'The Morning Show' Season 4: Everything We Know So Far 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Urges Judge Not To Dismiss CBS '60 Minutes' Lawsuit As Paramount And POTUS Teams Talk Settlement
Donald Trump's legal team made its latest filing in his lawsuit against CBS, as settlement negotiations continue between network parent Paramount and the president's team. Sources said that an opening offer to Trump has been made, in the eight figures, but that the discussions are still in the early stages. More from Deadline Donald Trump's Tariffs Deemed Unlawful & Blocked By Trade Court; White House Appeals Instantly Elon Musk Bids Farewell As Official Trump Administration Role Comes To An End Fox News Continued To See Audience Growth In May While MSNBC And CNN Posted Double-Digit Declines Vs. 2024 Meanwhile, Trump's team faced a deadline on Wednesday to file a response to CBS' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Trump sued the network over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris, as part of an election special that was broadcast in October. In a preview of the segment that aired on Face the Nation on October 6, Harris was shown giving an answer to a question about Israel-Gaza that was different than the one that was featured on the 60 Minutes broadcast the next day. Trump claimed that the broadcast was deceptive in a way to boost Harris' electoral chances. His amended, $20 billion lawsuit, filed in February, claimed violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the federal Lanham Act, laws typically used by consumers against false advertising. Trump contended that the interview 'improperly diverted' traffic from his media platforms, including Truth Social. In a motion to dismiss, CBS argued that the 60 Minutes preview and broadcast were not commercial speech, but news programming protected by the First Amendment. The network also has denied that the 60 Minutes edits were deceptive and merely for time constraints, noting that the first part of Harris' answer was shown on the Face the Nation preview and the second for the show's broadcast. In their latest filing, Trump's legal team argued that determining 'that the First Amendment precludes the instant lawsuit would put the cart before the horse—the First Amendment is no shield to news distortion.' Trump's lawyers wrote that 'because they were misled by Defendants' false advertising and tampering with the entirety of the Interview, viewers withheld attention from President Trump and Truth Social by directing their attention to Defendants' media platforms. This increased Defendants' engagement, viewership, and advertising revenue, and decreased the value of President Trump's ownership in TMTG and other media holdings.' Read Trump's response to CBS in 60 Minutes lawsuit. They further added that Trump 'was forced to re-direct significant time, money, and effort to correcting the public record regarding the content of the Interview and Election Special.' A number of legal experts see the lawsuit as meritless. Katie Couric, the former anchor of CBS Evening News, called it 'bulls—' in a recent interview with Jim Acosta, the former CNN host and correspondent. Neither part of Harris' answer is clear. But Paramount Global is seeking Trump administration approval for its merger with Skydance Media, and a settlement of the lawsuit is viewed as a way to secure a green light for the transaction. In his interview with Harris, 60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker asked her why Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not listening to the Biden administration. Harris replied, 'Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.' The second part of Harris' answer was shown on the 60 Minutes broadcast; the first part was shown on Face the Nation. But in arguing consumer harm, Trump's team wrote that merely 'having access to Defendants' services does not mean that a consumer would have watched the Election Special even without Defendants' deceptive advertising of it. Harris's meandering answer in the Preview was engaging in much the same way one cannot look away from a car crash happening in slow motion.' The Face the Nation preview was aired during the show, not during an advertising break. But Trump's team argued that CBS' legal team, in their motion to dismiss, 'neglects to reckon with modern forms of advertising monetization; the consumers' attention is the product which content creators vie for, which they can then monetize with advertisements.' In another filing, Trump's legal team also argued that the Texas court, rather than New York, was a proper venue for the litigation, as CBS had argued that the president was engaged in forum shopping. The federal judge assigned to the case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, was nominated by Trump in his first term. During Joe Biden's presidency, conservative groups sought to file cases in his Amarillo jurisdiction, seeking favorable rulings, per the Texas Tribune. Best of Deadline 'The Morning Show' Season 4: Everything We Know So Far 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
