Helius Medical Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ CM: HSDT)
Attention investors who purchased shares of Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. between November 9, 2017 and April 10, 2019:
Rigrodsky & Long is investigating claims brought in a securities fraud class action complaint against Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. ("Helius") concerning whether Helius and certain of the Company's directors and/or officers made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose materially adverse facts during the period November 9, 2017 and April 10, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), concerning Helius's business, operations and prospects. These misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the price of Helius's stock throughout the Class Period.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. (“Helius” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ CM: HSDT) between November 9, 2017 and April 10, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Helius during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Helius, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D. Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public: (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 false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, on January 25, 2019, the Company announced that it had received a request for additional data and information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) related to the Company’s request for de novo classification and 510(k) clearance of its Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator (PoNS™) device.
Then, on April 10, 2019, Helius announced that the FDA denied 510(k) clearance of the PoNS device because the Company had not provided sufficient clinical data to show the device was effective.
On this news, shares of Helius declined over 66%, closing at $2.10 per share on April 10, 2019, on heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed 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.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.