Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Again Alerts Investors of The Pending Securities Class Action Against Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. (TMCI)

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - May 28, 2025) - Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. ("Treace Medical" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TMCI), and certain of its former and current officers and/or directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5) on behalf of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Treace Medical securities between May 8, 2023, and May 7, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Scott+Scott is captioned: McCluney v. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00390.

CLICK HERE TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS POTENTIAL CLASS ACTION

Treace Medical is a medical technology company focused on advancing the standard of care for the surgical management of bunion and related midfoot deformities. The Company has patented the Lapiplasty, a combination of instruments, implants, and surgical methods designed to surgically correct all three planes of the bunion deformity and secure the unstable joint.

The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) competition impacted the demand for and utilization of its primary product, the Lapiplasty 3D Bunion Correction System (the "Lapiplasty"); (2) as a result, Treace Medical's revenue declined and the Company needed to accelerate its plans to offer a product that was an alternative to osteotomy (a surgical procedure that involves cutting and realigning a bone to improve its position or function); and (3) Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.