Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Talis, Talkspace, eHealth, and Oak Street and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, Feb. 23, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Talis Biomedical Corporation (NASDAQ: TLIS), Talkspace, Inc. (NASDAQ: TALK), eHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: EHTH), and Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Talis Biomedical Corporation (NASDAQ: TLIS)

Class Period: February 12, 2021 IPO

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2022

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the comparator assay in the primary study lacked sufficient sensitivity to support Talis’s EUA application for Talis One COVID-19 test; (2) that, as a result, Talis was reasonably likely to experience delays in obtaining regulatory approval for the Talis One COVID-19 test; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s commercialization timeline would be significantly delayed; and (4) 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.

By the commencement of this action, Talis stock has traded as low as $3.81 per share, a more than 76% decline from the $16 per share IPO price.

For more information on the Talis class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TLIS

Talkspace, Inc. (NASDAQ: TALK)

Class Period: June 17, 2021 Merger; June 11, 2020 – November 15, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2022

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Talkspace was experiencing significantly increased online advertising costs in its business-to-consumer ("B2C") channel since the start of 2021; (2) Talkspace was experiencing lower conversion rates in its online advertising in its B2C business; (3) Talkspace was experiencing increased customer acquisition costs and more tepid B2C demand than represented to investors; (4) Talkspace was suffering from ballooning customer acquisition costs and worsening growth and gross margin trends; (5) Talkspace had overvalued its accounts receivables from certain of its health plan clients in its business-to-business channel, which amounts required adjustment downward; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Talkspace’s 2021 financial guidance was not achievable and lacked any reasonable basis in fact.

For more information on the Talkspace class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TALK

eHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: EHTH)

Class Period: April 26, 2018 – July 23, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 18, 2022

eHealth is a health insurance broker that focuses on selling Medicare-related policies on behalf of private insurers. Its main source of revenue is commissions from selling Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement, and Medicare Part D prescription drug policies. On January 1, 2018, eHealth adopted and implemented a new accounting standard for recognizing revenue. This standard, referred to herein as Accounting Standard Codification 606 or ASC 606, allowed eHealth to recognize immediately the entirety of the commissions it expected to receive over the expected life of the policies. Although eHealth sold annual policies that could be cancelled at any time by the consumer, it assumed that its policies would be renewed for several years. Consequently, for many of eHealth’s Medicare-related policies, it recognized between three and five years of commissions immediately upon the sale of the policy.

The Complaint in the Class Action alleges that the assumption that eHealth’s customers would renew its policies was unrealistic and contrary to eHealth's recent experience of both cancellations and renewals. Beginning in 2017, eHealth started soliciting Medicare customers with television advertising. Late-night commercials boasting $0 monthly plan premiums effectively generated a surge in customers in a short period of time. Between 2017 and 2018, the number of Medicare-related insurance applications submitted to eHealth by applicants grew by 39%. These customers, however, were notorious for cancelling their policies in short periods of time, causing eHealth to experience sky-rocketing “member churn” ratios, i.e., the percentage of customers who cancel their policies within the first year. Notwithstanding, eHealth was able to provide analysts and investors with record-setting earnings due to the fact that it was able to recognize three- to five-years of commission revenue for these policies upfront and immediately.

The Complaint further alleges that Class members were materially harmed by eHealth's false and misleading statements. As a direct result of Defendants' materially false and misleading statements, eHealth’s stock price artificially increased from a relative steady price of around $15.32 per share of common stock on March 19, 2018 to $136.32 prior to April 8, 2020. It was on that day that Muddy Waters Capital, a well-known and highly respected research firm, published a report revealing eHealth's accounting misconduct. The report disclosed, among other things, that eHealth’s “highly aggressive accounting masks [] a significantly unprofitable business,” “that the key driver of growth since 2018 has been EHTH's reliance on Direct Response television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable, high churn enrollee,” “that EHTH’s persistence assumptions in its LTV model [under ASC 606] seem highly aggressive when compared to reality.” Muddy Waters report also disclosed that eHealth's financial statements for 2019: (a) overstated revenue by $128 million; (b) overstated operating profit by $263 million; and (c) understated an operating loss of -$181 million. The Muddy Waters report resulted in a sharp decline in the price of eHealth's stock, plummeting to $103.20 per share.

Subsequently, on July 23, 2020, when eHealth announced its earnings results for the second quarter of fiscal 2020, its stock price fell again as the information contained in its announcement confirmed substantive aspects of the “member churn” allegations previously asserted in the Muddy Waters report. In response, eHealth's stock price declined from a closing price of $114 per share on July 23, 2020 to $79.17 per share on July 24, 2020.

For more information on the eHealth class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/EHTH

Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH)

Class Period: August 6, 2020 – November 8, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 11, 2022

On November 8, 2021, Oak Street disclosed that on November 1, 2021 the Company received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). According to the CID, the DOJ was investigating whether the Company violated the False Claims Act. The CID also requests documents and information related to the Oak Street’s relationships with “third-party marketing agents” and Oak Street’s “provision of free transportation to federal health care beneficiaries.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $9.75, or more than 20%, to close at $37.14 per share on November 9, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action 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 Oak Street maintained relationships with third-party marketing agents likely to provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2) that Oak Street was providing free transportation to federal health care beneficiaries in a manner that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) that these activities may be violations of the False Claims Act; (4) that, as such, Oak Street was at heightened risk of investigation by the DOJ and/or other federal law enforcement agencies; (5) that, as a result, Oak Street was subject to adverse impacts related to defense and settlement costs and diversion of management resources; 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.

For more information on the Oak Street Health class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/OSH

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com

You May Also Be Interested In

• Evercore ISI starts 'accelerating AI play' AMD (AMD) at Outperform
• Midday movers: Morgan Stanley, UnitedHealth rise; Tesla falls
• CSX Unveils Its First Hydrogen-Powered Locomotive in Collaboration with CPKC