Lawsuit Overview
February 16, 2021 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
March 6, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.
January 6, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
August 5, 2019 - An investor in shares of Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (OTC: CURLF) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between November 21, 2018 and July 22, 2019.
Wakefiled, MA based Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. operates as an integrated medical and wellness cannabis operator in the United States. Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $19.31 million in 2017 to $77.05 million in 2018 and that its Net Loss increased from $2.81 million in 2017 to $56.46 million in 2018. Shares of Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (OTC: CURLF) grew to as high as $11.36 per share on May 6, 2019.
On July 22, 2019, the FDA sent a warning letter to Curaleaf stating that several of the Company’s CBD products sold on the Company’s website were “misbranded drugs” in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Shares of Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (OTC: CURLF) declined to $6.39 per share on August 13, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (OTC: CURLF) common shares between November 21, 2018 and July 22, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between November 21, 2018 and July 22, 2019, the defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Curaleaf Holdings, Inc, on its website and social media pages, marketed its CBD products to be used as drugs and dietary supplements, contrary to law, that Curaleaf Holdings, Inc also sold unapproved animal drugs on its website, that such conduct would result in a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and that as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.