In This Article:
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 24, 2019 / Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will be no cost or obligation to you.
3M Company (MMM)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 9, 2017 - May 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 27, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/3m-company-loss-form?prid=3684&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, 3M Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 3M had vast internal evidence dating back decades confirming that polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") are toxic (which was first publicly revealed in February 2018 by Minnesota's Attorney General); (ii) 3M had a decades-long history of suppressing negative information and/or damaging data about PFAS; and (iii) 3M has legal exposure to state, county, and local governments and individuals around the country as a result of its knowledge and intentional concealment of the toxic harm caused by the use of PFAS.
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 7, 2018 - August 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 11, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/international-flavors-fragrances-inc-loss-form?prid=3684&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that Frutarom Industries Ltd. ("Frutarom"), which the Company acquired in 2018, had bribed customers in Russia and Ukraine; (2) that senior management at Frutarom were aware of such improper payments; (3) that, as a result, Frutarom's financial results were materially overstated; (4) that, as a result of the improper payments, the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny; (5) that the Company had not completed adequate due diligence before acquiring Frutarom; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was unlikely to achieve purported synergies from the acquisition; and (7) 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.