DV INVESTOR ALERT: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP DoubleVerify class action lawsuit. Captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc., No. 25-cv-04332 (S.D.N.Y.), the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit charges DoubleVerify and certain of DoubleVerify's top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit, please provide your information here:
CASE ALLEGATIONS: DoubleVerify provides media effectiveness platforms.
The DoubleVerify class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) DoubleVerify's customers were shifting their ad spending from open exchanges to closed platforms, where DoubleVerify's technological capabilities were limited and competed directly with native tools provided by platforms like Meta Platforms and Amazon; (ii) DoubleVerify's ability to monetize on its Activation Services was limited because the development of its technology for closed platforms was significantly more expensive and time-consuming than disclosed to investors; (iii) DoubleVerify's Activation Services in connection with certain closed platforms would take several years to monetize; (iv) DoubleVerify's competitors were better positioned to incorporate AI into their offerings on closed platforms, which impaired DoubleVerify's ability to compete effectively and adversely impacted DoubleVerify's profits; (v) DoubleVerify systematically overbilled its customers for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms; and (vi) DoubleVerify's risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities.
The DoubleVerify class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 28, 2024, DoubleVerify issued lower revenue growth expectations for the first quarter of 2024 due to 'a slow start by brand advertisers and a slow ramp by recently signed' customers. On this news, the price of DoubleVerify stock fell more than 21%, according to the complaint.
Then, on May 7, 2024, as the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit alleges, DoubleVerify cut its full-year 2024 revenue outlook due to customers that were pulling back on their ad spending. On this news, the price of DoubleVerify stock fell nearly 39%, according to the complaint.
The DoubleVerify class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 27, 2025, DoubleVerify reported lower-than-expected fourth quarter 2024 sales and earnings due in part to reduced customer spending, and defendants further disclosed that the shift of ad dollars from open exchanges to closed platforms was negatively impacting DoubleVerify. On this news, the price of DoubleVerify stock fell more than 36%, according to the complaint.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired DoubleVerify common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the DoubleVerify 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 DoubleVerify class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
an hour ago
- Business Wire
SIGNING DAY SPORTS INVESTOR ALERT by the Former Attorney General of Louisiana: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Investigates Merger of Signing Day Sports, Inc.
NEW YORK CITY & NEW ORLEANS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Former Attorney General of Louisiana Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq. and the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ('KSF') are investigating the proposed merger of Signing Day Sports, Inc. (NYSE: SGN) and One Blockchain LLC. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, Signing Day shareholders are expected to own approximately 8.5% of the combined company. KSF is seeking to determine whether the merger and the process that led to it are adequate, or whether the merger is fair to Signing Day shareholders. If you would like to discuss your legal rights regarding the proposed transaction, you may, without obligation or cost to you, e-mail or call KSF Managing Partner Lewis S. Kahn ( toll free at any time at 855-768-1857, or visit to learn more. To learn more about KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General, visit
Business Wire
2 hours ago
- Business Wire
INVESTOR ALERT: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Broadmark Realty Capital Inc., Ready Capital Corporation, Others and Announces Opportunity for Investors with Substantial Losses to Lead Lawsuit – BRMK; RC
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that holders of Broadmark Realty Capital Inc. (NYSE: BRMK) common stock as of the record date of the May 2023 merger between Broadmark and Ready Capital Corporation (NYSE: RC) ('Merger'), have until July 28, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Broadmark class action lawsuit. Captioned Grant v. Broadmark Realty Capital, No. 25-cv-01013 (W.D. Wash.), the Broadmark class action lawsuit charges Broadmark, Ready Capital, certain of Broadmark's and Ready Capital's top executives and directors, and Ready Capital's external asset manager with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Broadmark class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: CASE ALLEGATIONS: Broadmark and Ready Capital are real estate investments trusts. On May 30, 2023, Broadmark shareholders voted to approve the merger of Broadmark and Ready Capital, which closed the next day. The Broadmark class action lawsuit alleges that the proxy statement used to solicit the support of Broadmark shareholders for the Merger contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a material portion of borrowers within Ready Capital's originated portfolio were experiencing significant financial distress due to high interest rates that had increased their borrowing costs; (ii) an oversupply of multifamily properties in Ready Capital's markets of operation had severely limited the ability of Ready Capital borrowers to raise their rents by the amounts necessary to cover their growing debt costs; (iii) a major development project acquired in Ready Capital's acquisition of Mosaic Real Estate Credit, LLC, Mosaic Real Estate Credit TE, LLC, and MREC International Incentive Split, LP (a Ritz-Carlton located in Portland, Oregon), which accounted for approximately $500 million of Ready Capital's acquired loan portfolio, had experienced catastrophic setbacks since its inception, including significant cost overruns, construction delays, and funding shortfalls; (iv) as a result, Ready Capital's Current Expected Credit Loss reserves and expected credit losses were materially understated; and (v) consequently, Ready Capital's financial projections regarding Ready Capital's Distributable Earnings per share, dividends per share, and book value per share had no basis in fact when made. The price of Ready Capital stock has remained significantly below the Merger price as of the time the Broadmark class action lawsuit was filed. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who held Broadmark common stock as of the record date of the Merger to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Broadmark 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 Broadmark class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Broadmark class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Broadmark class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Business Wire
3 hours ago
- Business Wire
URGN INVESTOR ALERT: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that UroGen Pharma Ltd. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP UroGen class action lawsuit. Captioned , 25-cv-06088 (D.N.J.), the UroGen class action lawsuit charges UroGen and certain of UroGen's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: CASE ALLEGATIONS: UroGen engages in the development and commercialization of solutions for specialty cancers. According to the complaint, UroGen's lead pipeline product is UGN-102 (mitomycin), an intravesical solution intended to treat low-grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The UroGen class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) UroGen's ENVISION clinical study for UGN-102 was not designed to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness of UGN-102 because it lacked a concurrent control arm; (ii) as a result, UroGen would have difficulty demonstrating that the duration of response endpoint was attributable to UGN-102; (iii) UroGen failed to heed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ('FDA') warnings about the study design used to support a new drug application ('NDA') for UGN-102; and (iv) as a result, there was a substantial risk that the NDA for UGN-102 would not be approved. The UroGen class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 16, 2025, the FDA published a briefing document in advance of its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting regarding UroGen's NDA for UGN-102, which stated that '[g]iven that ENVISION lacked a concurrent control arm, the primary endpoints of complete response (CR) and duration of response (DOR) are difficult to interpret,' and that the FDA had 'recommended a randomized trial design to the Applicant several times during their product's development due to concerns with interpreting efficacy results' but UroGen 'chose not to conduct a randomized trial with a design and endpoints that the FDA considered appropriate.' On this news, the price of UroGen stock fell nearly 26%, according to the complaint. Then, on May 21, 2025, the UroGen class action lawsuit further alleges that the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted against approving the UGN-102 NDA, finding that the overall benefit-risk of the investigation therapy UGN-102 is not favorable in patients with recurrent low-grade, intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. On this news, the price of UroGen stock fell nearly 45%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired UroGen securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the UroGen 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 UroGen class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the UroGen class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
