Tag: roles

NEW YORK, Aug. 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --

WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of shares of the Easterly ROCMuni High Income Municipal Bond Fund f/k/a Principal Street High Income Municipal Fund (the “Fund”) (tickers: RMJAX, RMHVX, RMHIX), between May 5, 2023 and June 12, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important September 22, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline. The Fund is a mutual fund within defendant James Alpha Funds Trust’s series of mutual funds (which does business as Easterly Funds Trust).

NEW YORK, Aug. 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --

WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Replimune Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: REPL) between November 22, 2024 and July 21, 2025, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important September 22, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the Firm.

NEW YORK, Aug. 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --

WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Designer Brands Inc. (NYSE: DBI) resulting from allegations that Designer Brands may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.

5G leader adds industry veterans Lawrence Hau as Chief Supply Chain Officer, reinforcing its command of global supply chain excellence, and Zack Kowalski as Senior Vice President of Business Development, to lead the company’s channel expansion strategy

ATLANTA, Aug. 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Replimune Group, Inc. (“Replimune” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: REPL). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information, including allegations that: (1) Defendants recklessly overstated the IGNYTE trial’s prospects, given material issues that defendants knew or should have known of, which resulted in the FDA deeming the IGNYTE trial inadequate and not well-controlled; and (2) as a result, defendants’ statements about Replimune’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.