BUD, TEVA & HSDT - Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Class Action Update

NEW YORK, Aug. 02, 2019 (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 Hurwitz 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. 

Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (NYSE: BUD)
Class Period: March 1, 2018 - October 24, 2018
Deadline: August 20, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/bud
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants’ cost cutting measures had largely run their course; (2) the devaluation of key emerging market currencies and input cost inflation was having a material adverse effect on Anheuser-Busch’s margins, EBITDA and profitability; (3) Anheuser-Busch had been experiencing less than expected growth and profits in certain key markets; (4) Anheuser-Busch was not going to be able to maintain its then current dividend and still meet its deleveraging targets; (5) Anheuser-Busch was at risk of having its credit ratings downgraded; (6) as a result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s dividend growth, its cost synergies, its liquidity, and defendants’ then current efforts to deleverage Anheuser-Busch’s balance sheet; (7) the liquidity and working capital disclosures in filings Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (8) the risk factor disclosures in filings Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (9) the representations about Anheuser-Busch’s disclosure controls in filings the Company made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (10) the certifications issued by Defendants Carlos Brito and Felipe Dutra regarding Anheuser-Busch’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting were materially false and misleading; and (11) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Anheuser-Busch’s then-current business operations and future financial prospects.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA)
Class Period: August 4, 2017 - May 10, 2019
Deadline: August 20, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/teva
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) contrary to its public denials, Teva had in fact engaged in a vast, industry-wide price-fixing scheme and other collusive misconduct since at least 2012; (2) Teva was not only a participant, but the company at the heart of the anticompetitive scheme; and (3) several Teva employees had such deep involvement in the scheme that they would ultimately be named personally as defendants in a sweeping civil enforcement action filed by the AGs of virtually every state in the nation.

Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSDT) 
Class Period: November 9, 2017 - April 10, 2019
Deadline: September 9, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/hsdt
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (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 misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | [email protected]