Lead Plaintiff Deadline: 06/15/2021
SUMMARY OF CASE:
A securities class action has been filed against LifeMD, Inc. (LFMD) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD securities between January 19, 2021 through April 13, 2021. This case has been filed in the USDC – S.D.N.Y.
On April 14, 2021, Culper Research issued a report alleging that “LifeMD appears to use unlicensed doctors to dispense OTC medications, has implemented an autoshipping/autobilling scheme, failed to honor guarantees, and put in place abusive telemarketing practices.” The report also alleged that several of the Company’s executives were involved in “wide ranging fraud” at Redwood Scientific, which was charged by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission for “unlawful autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and false claims.” Specifically, according to Culper Research, “many customers are effectively duped into purchasing subscriptions rather than one-time purchases” and LifeMD “makes cancellations difficult if not impossible.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $2.84, or 24%, to close at $9.00 per share on April 14, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
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, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that many of LifeMD’s executives were associated with Redwood Scientific when it was charged for unlawful autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and false claims, and that they employed similar practices at the Company; (2) that LifeMD engaged in autoshipping products to unwilling customers to record recurring revenue and the Company made it difficult to cancel such subscriptions; (3) that certain of the purportedly licensed physicians on the Company’s platform were not in fact licensed and faced disciplinary action; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing practices, the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny and/or reputational harm; and (5) 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.