SmileDirectClub, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDC) Investor Securities Class Action Lawsuit 10/02/2019

If you purchased shares of SmileDirectClub, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDC), you have certain options and for certain investors are short and strict deadlines running. Deadline: December 2, 2019. NASDAQ: SDC investors should contact the Shareholders Foundation, Inc.

To have your information reviewed for options and to recieve notifications about this case, please use this form. You may also send an email to, or call us at (858) 779-1554.
Company Name(s): 
Case Name: 
SmileDirectClub Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit 10/02/2019
Case Status: 
Lawsuit Filed
Affected Securities
Lawsuit Overview
Type of Lawsuit: 
Shareholder Class Action
Date Filed: 
Court of Filing: 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Deadline To File for Lead: 

An investor in shares of SmileDirectClub, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDC) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by SmileDirectClub, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made in connection with the Company’s September 2019 initial public offering (“IPO”).

On or about September 11, 2019, the Company conducted its initial public offering (“IPO”), selling 58.5 million shares of stock priced at $23.00 per share. Shares of SmileDirectClub, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDC) declined on September 26, 2019 to as low as $12.56 per share.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of SmileDirectClub, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDC) common shares, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that the , Defendants failed to disclose to investors that administrative personnel, rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the Company’s customers and monitored their progress, that, as a result, the Company’s practices did not qualify as teledentistry under applicable standards, that, as a result, the Company was subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of dentistry, that the efficacy of the Company’s treatment was overstated, that the Company had concealed these deceptive marketing practices prior to the IPO, and 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.