Atlas Lithium
Investors that purchased the Company’s securities and have suffered a loss, please fill in transaction information below, or email to info@portnoylaw.com.
There is no cost or obligation associated with submitting your information. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, please submit your contact information and purchase information to participate in the putative class action.
We also encourage you to contact Lesley F. Portnoy of The Portnoy Law Firm, at 310.692.8883, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm’s website at www.portnoylaw.com, or by email at info@portnoylaw.com.
If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
Joining the case through the Portnoy Law website enables investors to learn about their legal claims and take an active role in recovering their losses.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.
CONTACT:
Portnoy Law Firm
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.,
www.portnoylaw.com
Office: 310.692.8883
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
info@portnoylaw.com
On May 4, 2023, Bleecker Street Research published a report accusing Atlas Lithium of resembling a “pump and dump” scheme, with the company’s CEO having ties to a previously fined brokerage. This news led to a significant drop in Atlas Lithium’s stock price, falling 43.3% to $16.93 per share.
Subsequently, investors filed a complaint against Atlas Lithium and its executives, alleging that the company had misled them during the Class Period. The complaint claims that the company overstated the success of its lithium mining operations and misrepresented the nature of its mineral rights in Brazil. Additionally, it is alleged that Atlas Lithium engaged in deceptive promotions to artificially inflate its stock value, allowing insiders to sell shares for a profit before revealing the true nature of the company’s business. As a result, the positive statements made by the defendants about the company’s business, operations, and prospects were allegedly materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis throughout the relevant times.
