US law firms file class suit against NMC
dubai — The Schall Law Firm, a US shareholder rights litigation firm, is the latest in a host of law firms embarking on what appears to be a long-drawn-out legal battle against NMC Health reeling under a debt pile of $6.6 billion.
On Saturday, the law firm announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against NMC Health for violations of some of the rules of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a rule promulgated there under by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Other law firms actively engaged with the class action suit filing in courts on behalf of US investors alleging securities fraud include Bernstein Liebherd, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, Gainey, McKenna & Egleston, Pomerantz Law, and Wolf Hadenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.
dubai — The Schall Law Firm, a US shareholder rights litigation company, is the latest in a host of law firms embarking of what appears to be a long drawn-out legal battle against embattled NMC Health, which is reeling under a debt pile of $6.6 billion.
The law firm announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against NMC Health for violations of some of the rules of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a rule promulgated there under by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Other law firms actively engaged with the class action suit filing in courts on behalf of US investors alleging securities fraud include Bernstein Liebherd, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, Gainey, McKenna & Egleston, Pomerantz Law, and Wolf Hadenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.
These law firms have been encouraging investors who have lost $100,000 or more on NMC Health American Depository Receipts to join the fray.
Schall Law Firm asked investors who purchased NMC’s securities between March 13, 2016 and March 10, 2020, inclusive (the ‘Class Period’), to contact the firm before May 11, 2020.
“The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member,” said the company.
According to the complaint, NMC Health made false and misleading statements to the market. “NMC Health failed to maintain effective internal controls. The company engaged in numerous related-party transactions. The company understated its debts while simultaneously overstating its cash-on-hand.”
The law firms pointed out that NMC Health’s principal shareholders did not accurately report their interest in the company, which did not review the ownership stakes of these principal shareholders, and therefore could not enforce its relationship agreement with them. “Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about NMC Health, investors suffered damages.”
The filings make a number of allegations, including that the company lacked effective internal controls, that it engaged in “undisclosed and extensive” related party transactions, and that its debts were significantly understated, while cash balances were overstated.
At least one filing alleges that previous statements made by the company were “were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis”.
Legal firm Pomerantz alleged in its complaint that throughout the “class period,” NMC and its top officers “made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) NMC lacked effective internal controls and risk management; (ii) NMC engaged in undisclosed and extensive related party and de facto related party transactions; (iii) NMC’s debts were significantly understated and obfuscated; (iv) NMC’s cash-on-hand figures were overstated; (v) NMC’s principal shareholders were not accurately reporting or accounting their interests or stakes in the company; (vi) NMC did not review or know their principal shareholders interests or stakes in the company; (vii) consequently, the company was not enforcing its Relationship Agreement with the principal shareholders; and (viii) as a result, defendants’ statements about NMC’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.”