Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against InMode, Innodata, Fox Factory, and X and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, April 07, 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 InMode Ltd. (NASDAQ: INMD), Innodata Inc. (NASDAQ: INOD), Fox Factory Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: FOXF), and X. 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.

InMode Ltd. (NASDAQ: INMD)

Class Period: June 4, 2021 - October 12, 2023 (Common Stock Only)

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 15, 2024

InMode is a global provider of aesthetic medical devices and technology, including devices purporting to offer body sculpting and other rejuvenation technologies. The Company’s target customers include dermatologists, dentists, obstetricians and gynecologists, and medical spas.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning two topics that are of critical importance to investors: (1) the price at which InMode sells its devices, which reflects the demand for those products; and (2) InMode’s compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations, including the FDA’s prohibition on off-label marketing of devices and the FDA’s requirements for the reporting of injuries. Specifically, Defendants repeatedly touted the demand for InMode’s devices and told investors that those devices were never sold at a discount. InMode also assured investors that it had “obtained [FDA] clearance for the current treatments for which we offer our products” and that “no third-party claims have been brought against us to date.” As a result of these misrepresentations, the price of InMode common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

According to the complaint, in reality, throughout the Class Period, InMode routinely discounted the prices of its devices and violated FDA regulations by promoting the off-label use of its devices, and by failing to properly report injuries caused by its devices.

The complaint further alleges that the truth began to emerge just before the market closed on February 17, 2023, when an investigative publication revealed that InMode threatened some customers with legal action over complaints made about the Company’s devices and sales tactics. The customers also stated that InMode offered to replace defective products on the condition of signing confidentiality agreements with non-disparagement clauses. However, despite these disclosures, InMode continued to misrepresent the pricing of, and demand for, its products.

Then, on October 12, 2023, before the market opened, InMode lowered its full-year revenue guidance, which the Company blamed on higher interest rates, tighter leasing approval standards, and bottlenecks in loan processing. Later that same day, an investigative publication announced a forthcoming report on InMode, relating to the Company’s statements to investors about pricing flexibility of products and margin consistency. After the close of trading, the publication released a story revealing that InMode significantly discounted the prices of its devices on a routine basis throughout the Class Period. As a result of these disclosures, the price of InMode common stock declined precipitously.

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

Innodata Inc. (NASDAQ: INOD)

Class Period: May 9, 2019 - February 14, 2024

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 22, 2024

The lawsuit alleges that on February 15, 2024, Wolfpack Research published a report revealing that Innodata misrepresented the nature and extent of its business and operations. The Wolfpack Report showed that Innodata’s AI is really “smoke and mirrors” and that the Company’s marketing claims are like “putting lipstick on a pig.” While the Defendants touted Innodata’s status as an AI pioneer, other companies were only hiring Innodata for cheap labor and its operations were powered by thousands of low-wage offshore workers, not proprietary AI technology. Innodata also stopped disclosing its Research and Development spend after the first quarter of 2021. The Wolfpack Report highlighted that Innodata’s total R&D investment over the past five years was only $4.4 million, with even less allocated to R&D in 2023 than what was spent on promoting its “AI” technology through press releases.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts, including that Innodata: (1) did not have a viable AI technology; (2) its Goldengate AI platform is a rudimentary software developed by just a handful of employees; (3) it was not going to utilize AI to any significant degree for new Silicon Valley contracts; (4) it was not effectively investing in research and development for AI; and (5) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Innodata’s AI business and development and related financial results, growth, and prospects.

On this news, the price of Innodata common stock declined by $3.74 per share, or approximately 30.5%, on February 15, 2024.

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

Fox Factory Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: FOXF)

Class Period: May 6, 2021 - November 2, 2023

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2024

The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s business, financial condition, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants misled the market concerning demand for Fox Factory’s products and inventory levels.

The complaint further alleges that when these misleading statements and omissions about Fox Factory’s business reached the market, investors were harmed significantly.  For example, on November 2, 2023, after the markets closed, Fox Factory filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, reporting that its net sales for the third quarter of fiscal year 2023 decreased 19.1% year-over-year due to “higher levels of inventory across various channels.”  In addition, Fox Factory cut its full-year sales guidance from between $1.67B and $1.70B to between $1.45B and $1.47B, citing continued inventory destocking in its specialty sports group business segment.  

On this news, the price of Fox Factory’s common stock declined $22.60, or 37.34%, to close at $60.53 per share on November 3, 2023, on unusually high trading volume.

For more information on the Fox Factory class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FOXF

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: PANW)

Class Period: August 18, 2023 - February 20, 2024 (Common Stock Only)

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2024

After the market close on February 20, 2024, Palo Alto Networks announced financial results for the second quarter of 2024 and lowered its third quarter and full-year billings and revenue guidance. In an earnings call that same day, Defendants explained that “our guidance is a consequence of us driving a shift in our strategy in wanting to accelerate both our platformization and consolidation and activating our AI leadership.” Defendants also revealed that U.S. federal government deals for several large projects did not close and resulted in “a significant shortfall in our U.S. federal government business” that is expected to continue into the third and fourth quarters if 2024.

On this news, the price of Palo Alto Networks, Inc. common stock declined by $104.12 per share, or approximately 28%, on February 21, 2024.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts, including that: (1) The Company’s consolidation and platformization initiatives were not driving increased market share to a significant degree; (2) the Company would need to ramp up platformization and free product offerings to entice customers to adopt more of their platforms; (3) the Company’s high growth in billings was not sustainable; (4) new AI offerings were not facilitating greater platformization and consolidation; and (5) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about customer demand, billings, and platformization, as well as related financial results, growth, and prospects.

For more information on the Palo Alto Networks class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/PANW

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
[email protected]
www.bespc.com