Skip to content Skip to navigation

Securities

Twirla Contraceptive Patch

During clinical trials, Agile Therapeutics, Inc. touted its contraceptive patch to investors and the general public. But the complaint for this class action claims its statements were false or misleading, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, because the study was not going well. In reality, the complaint says, the efficacy figure for the patch was 4.80, when the highest figure the FDA would approve was 3.19, and just over half of the enrollees had failed to complete the study.

Seattle Genetics Building

According to the complaint for this securities class action, Seattle Genetics, Inc. touted the technology in its new drug candidate SGN-CD33A, claiming that it was more effective and did not have the health risks of earlier, similar drugs. These statements were false or misleading, the complaint claims, and they were violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, because the company knew that the drug was toxic to the liver. 

CBOE Sign on Building

This class action has no named defendants, just the designation “John Does”. The complaint alleges that someone is manipulating the final settlement prices of futures and options contracts linked to the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) Volatility Index (VIX), an act the complaint claims is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and various other rules. 

Image of Macular Degeneration

The complaint for this securities class action claims that Ophthotech artificially inflated its stock price by making overly positive statements about its lead drug candidate, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. When the final results of its Phase 3 trials emerged, showing no significant effects, the stock’s fall was swift and sharp, losing 86% of its value over just a few days.

A 10 Logo on Building

Accounting rules set guidelines for recognizing revenues, but it seems companies are still tempted to boost figures by recognizing revenue before it’s earned. The complaint for this securities class action claims that A10 Networks, Inc. inflated its stock price by improperly recognizing revenue in its public statements, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, leading to stock losses for investors when the truth emerged.

Silhouettes of Users Against Facebook Logo

Facebook had over 2.2 billion users as of the end of 2017. The complaint for this securities class action claims that Facebook did not protect these users’ privacy according to its own policies, violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and making it possible for companies to lift data for their own purposes. The complaint cites European investigations, the Cambridge Analytica lifting of some 50 million users’ data, and an FTC investigation into whether the company had possibly violated a 2011 consent decree meant to improve user privacy. 

Novo Nordisk Company Flag

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) stand between drug makers and health insurers and can choose what goes into a formulary, or list of drugs covered by the insurer. The complaint for this securities class action alleges that Novo Nordisk paid kickbacks to PBMs to include its insulin drugs in formularies and then kept its prices high to compensate for the kickbacks. Failing to disclose this, the complaint says, was a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

KemPharm Logo

This securities class action alleges that KemPharm should have considered Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance when designing studies for its lead product candidate, an opioid painkiller the company hoped would be labeled as abuse-deterrent. Ignoring those guidelines, the complaint says, made it unlikely that the drug would get the approval it needed and made the Registration Statement for its initial public offering (IPO) false or misleading.

NASDAQ Sign with Welcome for Fenix

Can a company acquire many different companies in a short period of time and still maintain effective controls? Fenix Parts, Inc. could not, claims the complaint for this securities class action. The company had been formed via the acquisition of eight companies and planned to acquire still more, but it ran into trouble within a year of its IPO because the devaluation of its inventory required a large goodwill impairment and crippled its ability to borrow. The alleged violations include both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

Illustration Symbolic of Lending

Is the integration of two lenders a difficult job? In the case of the OneMain and Springleaf merger, it seems to have been. Unfortunately, company officials did not adequately support the process, the complaint says, and differences between the two companies, their client bases, and their lending platforms ended up lowering productivity and increasing delinquencies. The complaint claims that the company’s concealment of the problems plus unrealistic guidance were violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

Pages