NEW YORK, Nov. 22, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against BioScrip, Inc. ("BioScrip" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BIOS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 13-cv-6922, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of BioScrip between August 8, 2011 and September 20, 2013 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased BioScrip securities during the Class Period, you have until November 29, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at email@example.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. BioScrip is a pharmacy benefit management and specialty pharmaceutical organization that partners with managed care organizations and healthcare providers to control prescription drug costs. The Company provides pharmacy benefit products and services and mail order pharmacy services, and is the fulfillment center for online retailers offering prescription and OTC products. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly distributed the product Exjade through its specialty pharmacy operations; (2) the Company was in violation of certain federal and state laws and regulations; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.