INVESTOR DEADLINE MONDAY: Geron Corporation Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit - GERN

San Diego, California--(Newsfile Corp. - May 9, 2025) - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Geron Corporation (NASDAQ: GERN) securities between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2025, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until this upcoming Monday, May 12, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Geron class action lawsuit. Captioned Dabestani v. Geron Corporation, No. 25-cv-02507 (N.D. Cal.), the Geron class action lawsuit charges Geron as well as certain of Geron's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A subsequently filed complaint is captioned Potvin v. Geron Corporation, No. 25-cv-02563 (N.D. Cal.).

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Geron class action lawsuit, please provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-geron-corporation-class-action-lawsuit-g ...

You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [e-mail].

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Geron is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development of therapeutic products for oncology. According to the complaint, Geron's primary product is a telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, which Geron sells under the brand name Rytelo.

The Geron class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to Geron's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations; (ii) in truth, Geron's optimistic reports of Rytelo's launch success and potential growth fell short of reality as the impacts of seasonality, existing competition, and the burden of continued monitoring played a much more significant role in patient starts than defendants had implied; and (iii) Rytelo lacked the necessary awareness to penetrate the market, resulting in an inability for Geron to capitalize on the purportedly significant unmet need for the drug, particularly among first-line patients and those outside the academic setting.