PDF

Nano-X Imaging Ltd. Class Action Lawsuit - NNOX

Company Name
Nano-X Imaging Ltd.
Stock Symbol
NNOX
Class Period
June 17, 2021 to August 18, 2021
Motion Deadline
December 4, 2021
Court
Eastern District of New York
48 days left to seek lead plaintiff status

Case Summary

The Nano-X class action lawsuit charges Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX) and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Nano-X class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of Nano-X securities between June 17, 2021 and August 18, 2021, inclusive (the “Class Period”).  The Nano-X class action lawsuit was commenced on October 5, 2021 in the Eastern District of New York and is captioned McLaughlin v. Nano-X Imaging Ltd., No. 21-cv-05517.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Nano-X class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here.  You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.  Lead plaintiff motions for the Nano-X class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than December 6, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: On June 17, 2021, Nano-X submitted a 510(k) submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) for its multi-source version of the Nanox.ARC.  A 510(k) is a type of premarket submission made to the FDA to demonstrate that a device to be marketed is as safe and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device.  Following this submission, defendants touted the Nanox.ARC’s regulatory and commercial prospects in various public statements and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

The Nano-X class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Nano-X’s 510(k) application for the Nanox.ARC was deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the 510(k) application for the Nanox.ARC in its current form; (iii) as a result, Nano-X had overstated the Nanox.ARC’s regulatory and commercial prospects; and (iv) consequently, Nano-X’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 19, 2021, Nano-X reported that Nano-X “received a request for additional information from the [FDA] concerning the Company’s last 510(k) submission of its multi-source device, Nanox.ARC,” and that “[t]he submission file is placed on hold pending a complete response to the FDA’s list of deficiencies,” with “[t]he Company’s response . . . due within 180 days from the date of the request for additional information.”  On this news, Nano-X’s ordinary share price fell nearly 10%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Nano-X securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Nano-X class action lawsuit.  A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class.  A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Nano-X class action lawsuit.  The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Nano-X class action lawsuit.  An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Nano-X class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. 

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.  Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig.  The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs’ firm.

Main Menu