Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/10/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: July 09, 2019

According to the Complaint, Helius is a neurotechnology company that purports to develop, license, or acquire non-invasive technologies targeted at reducing symptoms of neurological disease or trauma. The Company’s Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator (“PoNS”) is purportedly a medical device for the treatment of chronic balance deficit associated with mild to moderate traumatic brain injury.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HSDT
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 19-CV-06365
JUDGE: Hon. Loretta A. Preska
DATE FILED: 07/09/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/09/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/10/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (New York)
    122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (New York), NY 10168
    (212) 682-5340 (212) 884-0988 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available