NEW YORK, May 9, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Pomerantz LLP announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against CytRx Corporation ("CytRx" or the "Company")(NASDAQ: CYTR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California and docketed under 14-cv-02689, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of CytRX between November 22, 2013 and March 13, 2014, 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 CytRx securities during the Class Period, you have until May 13, 2014, 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. CytRx is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. The Company is currently focused on the clinical development of aldoxorubicin (formerly known as INNO-206), its modified version of the widely-used chemotherapeutic agent, doxorubicin. 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) that the Company had hired a promoter to boost its share price; (2) the promoter had posted misleading articles on behalf of the Company without properly disclosing its paid marketing relationship; and (3) that, as a result of the above, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.