Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 01/31/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: October 02, 2019

According to the Complaint, SmileDirectClub purports to be the “first direct-to-consumer medtech platform for transforming smiles” that manufactures, markets, and sells clear aligner treatments.

The Complaint alleges that 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 administrative personnel, rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the Company’s customers and monitored their progress; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s practices did not qualify as teledentistry under applicable standards; (3) that, as a result, the Company was subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of dentistry; (4) that the efficacy of the Company’s treatment was overstated; (5) that the Company had concealed these deceptive marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) 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.

On November 18, 2019, the Court issued an Order transferring this case to the Middle District of Tennessee under Docket CV-19-01057. On January 27, 2020, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SDC
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: E.D. Michigan
DOCKET #: 19-CV-12883
JUDGE: Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
DATE FILED: 10/02/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/23/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/02/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
  2. The Miller Law Firm, P.C.
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: M.D. Tennessee
DOCKET #: 19-CV-01057
JUDGE: Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
DATE FILED: 11/18/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/23/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/02/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (NY)
    230 Park Ave., Suite 530, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (NY), NY 10168
    (212) 682-5340 (212) 884-0988 ·
  2. The Miller Law Firm, P.C.
    950 West University Drive, Suite 300, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., MI 48307
    (248) 841-2200 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available