NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 19, 2023 / Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Atlas Lithium Corp. (NASAQ:ATLX)
Class Period: March 25, 2022 - May 3, 2023
Deadline: August 1, 2023
For more info: www.bgandg.com/atlx
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 Company overstated the success of its lithium mining and misrepresented the nature of its Brazilian mineral rights; (ii) in connection with these misrepresentations, Atlas Lithium conducted deceptive promotions to artificially inflate the value of the Company's stock; (iii) the foregoing conduct was designed to allow CEO Fogassa and other Company insiders to sell shares back into the market for a profit before the true nature of Atlas Lithium's business was revealed; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Tingo Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:TIO)
Class Period: December 1, 2022 - June 6, 2023
Deadline: August 7, 2023
For more info: www.bgandg.com/tio
The complaint 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: (1) that Defendant Mmobuosi fabricated biographical claims about himself; (2) that Tingo had photoshopped its logo onto pictures of airplanes it did not own; (3) that Tingo inflated its food division margins; (4) that Tingo published misleading images of its planned Nigerian food processing facility and overstated its progress on the facility's construction; (5) that Tingo inflated its food inventory; (6) that Tingo did not have relationships with the two farming cooperatives it claimed; (7) that Tingo did not generate $128 million in revenue for its handset leasing, call and data segments as it claimed; (8) that Tingo's Mobile operation in Nigeria was delinquent on its tax obligations; (9) that Tingo photoshopped its logo over pictures from a different point of sale system operator's website; (10) that Tingo did not generate $125.3 million in revenue from NWASSA; (11) that Tingo's agricultural export business was not on track to deliver $1.34 billion in exports by Q3 2023; (12) that Tingo lacked effective controls over accounting and financial reporting; and (13) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
SentinelOne, Inc. (NYSE:S)
Class Period: June 1, 2022 - June 1, 2023
Deadline: August 7, 2023
For more info: www.bgandg.com/s.
The Complaint alleges that 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: investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2) that, as a result, the Company's ARR was overstated; (3) that, as a result, the Company's guidance was overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com
SOURCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC