BENSALEM, Pa., April 05, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Amgen Inc. (NASDAQ: AMGN)
Class Period: July 29, 2020 – April 27, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 12, 2023

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the U.S. government claimed Amgen owed more than $3 billion in back taxes for tax years 2010, 2011, and 2012; (2) the U.S. government claimed Amgen owed more than $5 billion in back taxes for tax years 2013, 2014, and 2015; (3) the U.S. government would likely claim Amgen owed materially more to the U.S. government than investors had been led to believe for subsequent tax years for which Amgen had used the same profit allocation treatment between its U.S. and Puerto Rico operations; (4) Amgen had not taken sufficient accruals to account for its outstanding tax liabilities; (5) Amgen had failed to comply with ASC 450 and other rules and regulations regarding the preparation of its periodic U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings; and (6) Amgen's refusal to pay taxes claimed by the U.S. government exposed Amgen to a substantial risk of severe financial penalties imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and (7) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Signature Bank (OTC: SBNY, NASDAQ: SBNYP)
Class Period: March 2, 2023 – March 12, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 15, 2023

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Signature Bank did not have the strong fundamentals that it represented itself as having in the days immediately prior to its takeover, or otherwise took action that left it susceptible to a takeover by the DFS; (2) as a result, it became a target for regulatory action by the DFS, and (3) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG, GOOGL)
Class Period: February 4, 2020 – January 23, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 15, 2023
Shareholders with losses exceeding $100,000 are encouraged to contact the firm.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Alphabet used its dominance in the field of digital advertising to disadvantage website publishers and advertisers who used competing advertising products; (2) the foregoing conduct was anticompetitive in nature and likely to draw significant regulatory scrutiny; (3) Alphabet's revenues were unsustainable to the extent that they were the product of said anticompetitive conduct; (4) Alphabet's conduct, once revealed, would negatively impact the Company's reputation and expose it to a heightened risk of litigation and regulatory enforcement action; and (5) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC)
Class Period: October 28, 2020 – March 3, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 15, 2023

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Norfolk Southern’s Precision Scheduled Railroading (“PSR”), including its use of longer, heavier trains staffed by fewer personnel, had led to Norfolk Southern suffering increased train derailments and a materially increased risk of future derailments; (2) Norfolk Southern’s PSR was part of a culture of increased risk-taking at the expense of reasonable safety precautions due to Norfolk Southern’s near-term focus solely on profits; (3) Norfolk Southern’s PSR rendered Norfolk Southern more vulnerable to train derailments and train derailments with potentially more severe human, financial, legal, and environmental consequences; (4) Norfolk Southern’s capital spending and replacement programs were designed to prioritize profits over Norfolk Southern’s ability to provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail transportation services; (5) Norfolk Southern’s lobbying efforts had undermined Norfolk Southern’s ability to provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail transportation services; (6) Norfolk Southern’s commitment to reducing operating expenses as part of its PSR goals undermined worker safety and Norfolk Southern’s purported commitment to an injury-free workplace because Norfolk Southern’s PSR plan prioritized reducing expenses through fewer personnel, longer trains, and less spending on safety training, technology, and equipment such as hot bearing wayside detectors (a/k/a hotboxes) and acoustic sensors; (7) Norfolk Southern’s rail services were, as a result of its adoption of PSR principles, more susceptible to accidents that could cause serious economic and bodily harm to Norfolk Southern, its workers, its customers, third parties, and the environment; (8) Norfolk Southern had failed to put in place responsive practices and procedures to minimize the threat to communities in the event that these communities suffered the derailment of a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous and toxic materials; and (9) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com