 NEW YORK, Aug. 19, 2020 GLOBE NEWSWIRE -- Bragar Eagel Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of J2 Global, Inc. NASDAQ: JCOM, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. NASDAQ: VRCA, Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft NYSE: DB, and Insperity, Inc. NYSE: NSP. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. J2 Global, Inc. NADSAQ: JCOM Class Period: October 5, 2015 to June 29, 2020Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020On June 30, 2020, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research published a report the Report explaining that J2 Global had, among other issues: i failed to disclose questionable transactions with related parties; ii utilized misleading accounting to hide underperformance and impending impairments; and iii failed to disclose a lack of board independence.On this news, shares of J2 Global fell 6.29 per share, or over 9, to close at 63.21 per share on June 30, 2020.The complaint, filed on July 8, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false andor misleading statements andor failed to disclose that: 1 J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; 2 J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; 3 several so-called independent members of the Company board of directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and 4 as a result, defendants public statements were materially false andor misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.For more information on the J2 Global class action go to: Pharmaceuticals, Inc. NASDAQ: VRCA Class Period: September 16, 2019 to June 29, 2020Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020Verrica is a dermatology therapeutics company that develops treatments for people living with skin diseases. Its lead product candidate, VP-102, is a drug-device combination of a topical solution of cantharidin administered through the Companys single-use precision applicator. The Company is initially developing VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum, or molluscum, a highly contagious and primarily pediatric viral skin disease, and common warts.On June 29, 2020, Verrica disclosed receipt of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA regarding the Companys New Drug Application NDA for VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. The letter identified certain deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements. Moreover, according to the Company, the FDAs information requests have included a specific request related to a potential safety issue with the applicator that could arise if the instructions for use were not properly followed.On this news, the Companys share price fell 3.06, or nearly 22, to close at 11.01 per share on June 30, 2020.The complaint, filed on July 14, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false andor misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Companys business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: 1 that the Companys proprietary applicator used for VP-102 posed certain safety risks if the instructions were not properly followed; 2 that, as a result, Verrica would incorporate certain user features to mitigate the safety risk; 3 that the addition of the user feature would require additional testing for stability supportive data; 4 that, as a result of the foregoing, regulatory approval for VP-102 was reasonably likely to be delayed; and 5 that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants positive statements about the Companys business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading andor lacked a reasonable basis.For more information on the Verrica class action go to: Bank Aktiengesellschaft NYSE: DBClass Period: November 7, 2017 to July 6, 2020Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020On May 13, 2020, media outlets reported that the U.S. Federal Reserve had sharply criticized Deutsche Banks U.S. operations in an internal audit. The audit reportedly found that Deutsche Bank had failed to address multiple concerns identified years earlier, including concerns related to the banks anti-money laundering AML and other control procedures.On this news, the value of Deutsche Banks ordinary shares fell 0.31 per share, or 4.49, to close at 6.60 per share on May 13, 2020.Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserves criticism of Deutsche Banks failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the bank 150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable transactions from accounts associated with sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein and with two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, both of which were the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct.On this news, the value of Deutsche Banks ordinary shares fell 0.13 per share, or 1.31, to close at 9.82 per share on July 7, 2020The complaint, filed on July 15, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the banks business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false andor misleading statements andor failed to disclose that: i Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies related to AML, its disclosure controls, and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, and its U.S. operations troubled condition; ii as a result, the bank failed to properly monitor customers that the bank itself deemed to be high risk; iii the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the banks financial results and reputation; and iv as a result, the banks public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.For more information on the Deutsche Bank class action go to: Inc. NYSE: NSP Class Period: February 11, 2019 to February 11, 2020Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020On July 29, 2019, Insperity released its second quarter 2019 financial results. Despite delivering year-over-year growth and meeting analysts estimates, the Company offered disappointing third quarter 2019 guidance and reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Further, defendants revealed that in the second quarter 2019, Insperity had experienced an increase in large medical claim costs, which defendants described as an anomaly which would not impact projected cost benefit trends.On this news, Insperity shares fell 35.74 per share, or 25 percent.On November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter 2019 financial results, which substantially missed analysts estimates and were materially down year-over-year. In addition, Insperity materially reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Defendants attributed these results to continued large medical claim costs, which they again attempted to describe as a mere anomaly to assuage investor concern.On this news, Insperity shares fell by 36.29 per share, or 34 percent.Finally, on February 11, 2020, after the close of trading, Insperity released its fourth quarter and full-year 2019 financial results. On this date, Insperity revealed that, for the third quarter in a row, large medical claims had again impacted the Company. Further, the Company stated that it had restructured its contract with UnitedHealthcare to no longer have financial responsibility for any medical claims over 1 million. Insperity also offered disappointingly bearish guidance for the first quarter and full-year 2020.On this news, Insperity shares declined by 17.44 per share, or 20 percent.The complaint, filed on July 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the Companys business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by defendants: i the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; ii Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; iii as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and iv the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperitys financial results.For more information on the Insperity securities class action case go to: Bragar Eagel Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. 212 355-4648 