SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Nano-X Imaging Ltd. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline - NNOX

NEW YORK, Dec. 2, 2021

If you are a shareholder who purchased Nano-X securities during the Class Period, you have until December 6, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. 

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

Nano-X is a development-stage company that develops, produces, and commercializes digital X-ray source technology for the medical imaging industry worldwide. The Company is developing, among other technologies, the "Nanox.ARC", which is an imaging system that uses a purportedly novel X-ray source, also developed by the Company.

On June 17, 2021, Nano-X submitted a 510(k) submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") for its multi-source version of the Nanox.ARC. A 510(k) is a type of premarket submission made to the FDA to demonstrate that a device to be marketed is as safe and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device. Following this submission, Defendants touted the Nanox.ARC's regulatory and commercial prospects in various public statements and SEC filings.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Nano-X's 510(k) application for the Nanox.ARC was deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the 510(k) application for the Nanox.ARC in its current form; (iii) as a result, Nano-X had overstated the Nanox.ARC's regulatory and commercial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.