Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT) along with its predecessor, Roth CH Acquisition I Co. (“ROCH”) (collectively, “PureCycle” or the “Company”), publicly traded securities during the period between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive, and all holders of ROCH securities entitled to participate in the March 16, 2021 shareholder vote on the merger with PureCycle (the “Class Period”) have until July 10, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the PureCycle class action lawsuit. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed the complaint captioned Tennenbaum v. PureCycle Technologies, Inc., No. 21-cv-00818, in the Middle District of Florida charging PureCycle, ROCH, and certain of PureCycle’s executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A similar complaint captioned Theodore v. PureCycle Technologies, Inc., No. 21-cv-00809, is also pending in the Middle District of Florida.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the PureCycle class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the PureCycle class action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or contact Juan Carlos Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Through November 2020, ROCH was a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”). On November 16, 2020, PureCycle announced that PureCycle would list its common stock on the NASDAQ through a reverse merger with the ROCH SPAC. The PureCycle class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the management team bringing PureCycle public had previously brought six other failed business public only to have each implode thereafter; (ii) the management team bringing PureCycle public had characterized rank speculation as financial projections to investors in the past; (iii) the primary motivation of the management team bringing PureCycle public was to complete any transaction, good or bad, to obtain tens of millions of dollars in cash and tradable shares; (iv) PureCycle faces higher competition for high quality feedstock than it has led investors to believe, materially undermining the management team’s financial projections; (v) PureCycle’s patent is nowhere as cogent or valuable as it has led investors to believe, and the technology underlying its business operations is unproven and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (vi) in reality, PureCycle’s flammable pressurized process is not yet functional, especially at scale, and is dangerous; (vii) PureCycle purports to be advancing to commercial production scale despite still having operational issues at a lab scale; and (viii) as a result, defendants’ positive statements during the Class Period about PureCycle’s business performance, financial and operational metrics, and financial prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 6, 2021, stock research firm Hindenburg Research published a detailed report, supported by multiple former employees and industry experts, detailing that the management team bringing PureCycle public had: (i) previously brought six other businesses public only to have each implode thereafter, “resulting in 2 bankruptcies, 3 delistings, and 1 acquisition after a ~95% decline,” with “[o]ver $760 million in public shareholder capital [being] incinerated in the process”; (ii) “based their financial projections” in those other failed companies on “‘wild ass guessing,’ [bringing] companies public far too early, and [having] deceived investors”; and (iii) only brought PureCycle public to permit that same spurious management team to “collectively position[] themselves to clear ~$90 million in cash and tradable shares before the company generates a single dime in revenue.” The report cited industry experts who explained that despite PureCycle’s rosy projections, “PureCycle faces steep competition for high quality feedstock, and called the company’s financial projections into question.” The report included the account of a “30-year expert on polymers, with a background in advanced plastics recycling” who stated that PureCycle’s “patent is ‘indirect,’ ‘vague’ and ‘regurgitation’ of prior art” and “referred to the company’s flammable pressurized process as a ‘bomb’ and warned about the company foraging ahead to commercial scale despite still having issues at a lab scale.” The report concluded that “PureCycle represents the worst qualities of the SPAC boom; another quintessential example of how executives and SPAC sponsors enrich themselves while hoisting unproven technology and ridiculous financial projections onto the public markets, leaving retail investors to face the ultimate consequences.” On this news, the price of PureCycle’s common stock declined by more than 40%, damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP’s SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly developing investment arena.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased PureCycle publicly traded securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the PureCycle class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the PureCycle class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the PureCycle class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the PureCycle class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the PureCycle class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May 11, 2021.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs’ firm. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com for more information.

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw

https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw

https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210701005172/en/