ALERT

Investors With Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead the ATI Physical Therapy, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit - ATIP

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that: (a) purchasers of ATI Physical Therapy, Inc. f/k/a Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. II (“FVAC”) (NYSE: ATIP) securities between April 1, 2021 and July 23, 2021, inclusive (the “Class Period”); and/or (b) holders of FVAC Class A common stock as of May 24, 2021 who were eligible to vote at FVAC’s June 15, 2021 special meeting have until October 15, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the ATI Physical Therapy class action lawsuit. The ATI Physical Therapy class action lawsuit (Burbige v. ATI Physical Therapy, Inc. f/k/a Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. II, No. 21-cv-04349) charges ATI Physical Therapy and certain of its and FVAC’s top executives and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The ATI Physical Therapy class action lawsuit was commenced on August 16, 2021 in the Northern District of Illinois and is pending before Judge Edmond E. Chang.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the ATI Physical Therapy class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [e-mail]. Lead plaintiff motions for the ATI Physical Therapy class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October 15, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: FVAC was a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC” or “blank check company”) formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination with one or more businesses. ATI Physical Therapy is an outpatient physical therapy company that owns and operates nearly 90 physical therapy clinics across 25 states. On June 17, 2021, ATI Physical Therapy became public via a business combination with FVAC

The ATI Physical Therapy class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) ATI Physical Therapy was experiencing attrition among its physical therapists; (ii) ATI Physical Therapy faced increasing competition for clinicians in the labor market; (iii) as a result, ATI Physical Therapy faced difficulties retaining therapists and incurred increased labor costs; (iv) given the labor shortage, ATI Physical Therapy would open fewer new clinics; and (v) consequently, defendants’ positive statements about ATI Physical Therapy’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.