NEW YORK, March 06, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC), Hut 8 Corp. (NASDAQ: HUT), Xponential Fitness, Inc. (NYSE: XPOF), and Amplitude, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMPL). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC)

Class Period: January 11, 2022, - May 30, 2023 (Common Stock Only)

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 8, 2024

iRhythm develops and manufactures heart monitoring devices designed to diagnose arrythmias. The Company’s principal product is a monitoring patch that provides electrocardiogram (“ECG”) monitoring for up to 14 days, called Zio XT. The Zio XT is intended for non-critical patients, as it does not provide real-time reporting.

In 2017, iRhythm developed Zio AT, a device the Company described as “offer[ing] the full benefits of [its] Zio XT Service, with the addition of real-time data transmission and notification of actionable clinical events.” Actionable arrhythmic events include atrial fibrillation, a condition that can cause troubling symptoms and serious medical complications, including blood clots that can lead to stroke and heart failure. The Zio AT comes with a cellular transmittal device that provides connectivity between the Zio AT and the proprietary algorithmic software that analyzes the ECG data and detects arrhythmic events for the 14-day wear period. Importantly, given its purported capabilities to provide “real-time” notifications of arrhythmic events, the Zio AT device is marketed to high-risk patients as a mobile cardiac telemetry device. These types of heart monitors that are approved for high-risk patients and provide near real-time alerts are also referred to as “real-time” monitors. Real-time monitors sell for a premium over monitors that do not provide real-time notifications of arrhythmic events.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants falsely represented to investors that the Zio AT monitor was a real-time monitor intended for high-risk patients. Specifically, Defendants repeatedly touted the potential growth for the Zio AT as an innovative product that had only just begun to penetrate the market for real-time monitoring, which investors looked upon favorably given the premium selling price associated with devices approved for high-risk patients. As a result of these misrepresentations, the price of iRhythm common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

The complaint further alleges that the truth emerged through a series of disclosures beginning on November 1, 2022, when the Company reported revised fourth quarter and full-year guidance, in part due to “Zio AT utilization.” The Company explained during a conference call with investors that “coming into the fourth quarter, [iRhythm] voluntarily issued a Customer Advisory Notice to [its] Zio AT customers.” Consequently, the Company lowered its Zio AT forecast for the quarter from the 40% growth target it had provided through the past three quarters to just 20%. Three days later, on November 4, 2022 the Company disclosed that it initiated the Customer Advisory Notice on September 28, 2022, following issues raised by the FDA during an inspection that culminated in an inspection observation report on Form 483, and that the Customer Advisory Notice warned patients of a “labeling correction” related to “the device’s maximum transmission limits during wear,” as well as other critical issues that prevent the device from working as advertised. However, Defendants tried to assuage investors’ concerns and continued to tout the growth of the Zio AT.

Then, on May 4, 2023, the Company announced that “on April 4, 2023, [it] received a Subpoena Duces Tecum from the Consumer Protection Branch, Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting production of various documents regarding [its] products and services.” Although the Company refrained from providing additional detail about the DOJ’s request, in a May 5, 2023, report, J.P. Morgan analysts noted that one of iRhythm’s competitors, Boston Scientific, had also disclosed that it received a subpoena from the DOJ relating to its real-time monitoring product, which indicated to the analysts that the DOJ investigation into iRhythm was related to the Zio AT.

Finally, on May 30, 2023, iRhythm disclosed that it had received a warning letter from the FDA, which addressed a series of deficiencies tied to the marketing and capabilities of the Zio AT device. In particular, the FDA noted that iRhythm had falsely marketed the Zio AT as approved for use in high-risk patients that require real-time cardiac monitoring. In truth, according to the FDA, Zio AT is only approved for “long-term monitoring of arrhythmia events for non-critical care patients where real-time monitoring is not needed.” As a result of these disclosures, the price of iRhythm common stock declined precipitously.

For more information on the iRhythm class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/IRTC

Hut 8 Corp. (NASDAQ: HUT)

Class Period: November 9, 2023 - January 18, 2024

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 8, 2024

In November 2023, Hut 8 formed following the merger of Hut 8 Mining Corp. (“Legacy Hut”) and U.S. Data Mining Group, Inc. d/b/a US Bitcoin Corp. (“USBTC”) (the “Merger”). USBTC held a 50% interest in a joint venture bitcoin mining facility, located in King Mountain, Texas (the “King Mountain JV”), which was acquired in the Merger.

On January 18, 2024, at approximately 10:30 AM EST, J Capital Research published a report which alleged, inter alia, that Hut 8’s merger with USBTC was premised on a number of alleged misstatements, including (1) that the USBTC had an “undisclosed related party” as one of its largest shareholders, (2) that one of USBTC’s core assets, the King Mountain JV, “has historically failed to provide energy and high-speed internet,” and (3) that the Company had misstated certain finances of the King Mountain JV by failing to account for certain interest expenses. Citing individuals “highly familiar” with USBTC, the report stated that, without the Merger, USBTC would have undergone bankruptcy and that USBTC had a value estimated to be 70% less than the approximately $745 million that Hut 8 paid to acquire it.

On this news, Hut 8’s stock price fell $2.16, or 23.3%, to close at $7.12 per share on January 18, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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: (1) that one of USBTC’s largest shareholders is an undisclosed related party; (2) that USBTC’s core asset has historically failed to provide energy and high-speed internet; (3) that the profitability of certain USBTC assets were overstated; and (4) 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.

For more information on the Hut 8 class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/HUT

Xponential Fitness, Inc. (NYSE: XPOF)

Class Period: July 26, 2021 - December 7, 2023 (Publicly Traded Class A Common Stock Only)

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 9, 2024

The Xponential class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Xponential had permanently closed at least 30 stores; (ii) Xponential’s reported same-store sales (“SSS”) and average unit volume (“AUV”) metrics had been misstated by excluding underperforming stores; (iii) 8 out of 10 Xponential brands were losing money monthly; (iv) over 50% of Xponential studios did not make a positive financial return; (v) over 60% of Xponential’s revenue was one-time and non-recurring; (vi) more than 100 of Xponential’s franchises were for sale at a price that is at least 75% less than their initial cost; (vii) Xponential had misled many of its franchisees into opening franchises by misrepresenting the financial profile and profitability of its studios, as well as the expected rate of return for new studio openings; and (viii) many Xponential franchisees were substantially in debt, suffering high attrition rates and running non-viable studios that had no realistic path to profitability.

On June 26, 2023, Fuzzy Panda published a report on Xponential, which, among other things, represented that: (i) Xponential CEO, defendant Anthony Geisler, has had a long history of misleading investors; (ii) Xponential has issued a series of misleading statements about its store closures and the overall financial health of its franchisee base; (iii) more than 50% of Xponential’s studios never make a positive financial return; (iv) more than 100 of Xponential’s franchises are for sale at a price that is at least 75% less than their initial cost; (v) 8 out of 10 Xponential brands are losing money monthly; (vi) Xponential’s publicly reported SSS and AUV metrics misleadingly exclude underperforming stores; (vii) over 60% of Xponential’s revenue is one-time and non-recurring; and (viii) at least 30 Xponential stores had been permanently closed. On this news, the price of Xponential common stock fell more than 37%.

Then, on December 7, 2023, Businessweek published an article titled “Club Pilates, Pure Barre Owners Say Xponential Left Them Bankrupt” which stated that Businessweek had interviewed dozens of former business partners, employees, and franchisees of Xponential who revealed that Xponential misled many franchisees into a “financial nightmare.” The article further stated defendant Geisler “has a track record of combative management, deploying growth-at-all-costs tactics and unleashing aggressive reprisals against anyone who gets in his way.” On this news, the price of Xponential common stock fell more than 26% over two trading days.

For more information on the Xponential class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/XPOF

Amplitude, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMPL)

Class Period: September 21, 2021 - February 16, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 15, 2024

Amplitude is a technology company that helps businesses analyze data for their digital products and track customer interactions.

The Amplitude class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Amplitude’s land-and-expand strategy was years away from significantly accelerating revenues among its newer client cohorts; and (ii) the rapid acceleration in Amplitude’s second quarter of 2021 results resulted from the ephemeral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic which had not continued by the start of the Class Period, as Amplitude clients were expanding at a slower pace.

On February 16, 2022, Amplitude revised downward its 2022 revenue guidance, from more than 40% to a range of $226 million to $234 million (or 35% to 40%). During the earnings call that followed, Amplitude CFO, defendant Hoang Vuong, stated that Amplitude was still “a few years” away from many of its new customers “completely embrac[ing] the full capability of [Amplitude’s] digital optimization,” which he stated would eventually “drive larger expansion.” 

On this news, the price of Amplitude stock fell nearly 59%.

For more information on the Amplitude class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/AMPL

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com