In re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Securities Litigation

On December 19, 2024, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“BLB&G”) filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Dentsply Sirona Inc. (“Dentsply” or the “Company”) and certain of the Company’s current and former executives (collectively, “Defendants”).

On February 21, 2025, the Court appointed HansaInvest Hanseatische Investment-Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung and City of Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust as Lead Plaintiffs and BLB&G as Lead Counsel.

Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on May 9, 2025. The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Dentsply common stock between January 4, 2021, and February 26, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”). To view the complaint, see the Case Documents section of this page.

Dentsply’s Alleged Fraud

Dentsply is a manufacturer of dental products and technology. The action against Dentsply concerns representations the Company and its executives made about Dentsply’s Byte business, a direct-to-consumer clear aligner company that Dentsply purchased at the beginning of the Class Period.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Dentsply and certain of its senior executives made materially false and misleading statements concerning Byte and the drivers of Byte’s reported sales. For example, Defendants represented to investors that “Byte’s nationwide network of licensed dentists and orthodontists prescribe and oversee every customer’s treatment plan,” that Byte “only accept[s] customers who are great candidates for teledentistry and can safely use Byte for improving their smile,” and that the Company was “in substantial compliance with the laws and regulations that regulate its business.” As a result of these misrepresentations, Dentsply common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

In reality, Byte aligner treatment plans were not overseen by licensed dentists and orthodontists, the product was repeatedly prescribed to patients who should never have received it, and Dentsply received thousands of reports of patient injuries that it failed to report to the FDA.  In fact, rather than ensure that patient treatment was “oversee[n] by licensed dentists and orthodontists,” Dentsply customer service employees gave unqualified medical advice to customers.  Further, rather than “only accept customers who are great candidates for teledentistry,” Dentsply sales employees were instructed to enroll “contraindicated” patients who were ineligible for Byte treatment in order to inflate reported sales.

The truth began to emerge on October 24, 2024, when Dentsply announced that it was suspending the sale and marketing of Byte aligners “while the Company conducts a review of certain regulatory requirements related to these products.” In response to this disclosure, Dentsply common stock declined nearly 5%.

On November 7, 2024, Dentsply reported that its results were impacted by the suspension of Byte sales, that the Company was considering discontinuing some or all of the Byte business, and that Dentsply was recording a $145 million impairment of goodwill due to the Byte withdrawal.  These disclosures caused the price of Dentsply common stock to decline by more than 28%.

Then, on January 14, 2025, Dentsply announced that it would not be reinstating Byte’s at-home treatment model. In response to this disclosure, the price of Dentsply’s common stock declined by 3.50%.

Finally, before the markets opened on February 27, 2025, Dentsply disclosed that it was shutting down the Byte business entirely and that Dentsply had incurred tens of millions of dollars in remediation, refund, and other Byte-related expenses.   These disclosures caused Dentsply’s stock price to decline by nearly 9%.

Under the schedule approved by the Court, Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on May 9, 2025; Defendants will move to dismiss by July 8, 2025; Lead Plaintiffs will oppose any motion(s) to dismiss by September 8, 2025; and Defendants will file any reply by October 8, 2025.