EHTH, ELMS & FENC Shareholder Alert: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, A Leading Class Action Firm, Reminds Investors of Upcoming Deadlines

NEW YORK, March 04, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Attorney Advertising — 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 Investor Relations Analyst, 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.


eHealth, Inc.


(


NASDAQ: EHTH


)



Class Period:

April 26, 2018 – July 23, 2020


Deadline:

March 18, 2022


For more info:


www.bgandg.com/ehth

.

On November 8, 2021, eHealth issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter of 2021. Among other items, eHealth announced earnings per share and revenue that fell short of consensus estimates. eHealth also revised its full-year revenue guidance sharply downward, to a range of $535 million to $575 million, compared to previous guidance of $660 million to $700 million, and advised investors that it expected a GAAP net loss in the range of $43 million to $63 million compared to previous guidance of GAAP net income of $42 million to $57 million. On this news, eHealth’s stock price fell $10.36 per share, or 25.59%, to close at $30.06 per share on November 8, 2021.


Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Forum Merger III Corporation


(NASDAQ:


ELMS; ELMSW; FIII; FIIIW; FIIIU


)



Class Period:

March 31, 2021 – February 1, 2022


Deadline:

April 4, 2022


For more info:


www.bgandg.com/elms

.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) ELMS’s previously issued financial statements were false and unreliable; (2) ELMS’s earlier reported financial statements would need restatement; (3) certain ELMS executives and/or directors purchased equity in the Company at substantial discounts to market value without obtaining an independent valuation; (4) on November 25, 2021 (Thanksgiving), the Company’s Board formed an independent Special Committee to conduct an inquiry into certain sales of equity securities made by and to individuals associated with the Company; and (5) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. As a result, the Company’s share price fell $2.88 per share, or 51%, to close at $2.71 per share on February 2, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors.


Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc.


(NASDAQ: FENC)



Class Period:

May 28, 2021 – November 26, 2021


Deadline:

April 11, 2022


For more info:


www.bgandg.com/fenc

.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fennec had not successfully remediated, and overstated its efforts to remediate, issues with the manufacturing facility of its drug product manufacturer for PEDMARK; (2) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Resubmitted Pedmark NDA; (3) accordingly, the regulatory and commercial prospects of the Resubmitted Pedmark NDA were overstated; and (4) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC

Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson

212-697-6484 |

[email protected]


Primary Logo