According to the law firm press release, 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: (1) that the Company was experiencing difficulty ensuring the safety of customers' jewelry while in the custody of Signet's brands; (2) that employees at stores under at least one of Signet's brands (Kay) were swapping customers' stones for less valuable stones; (3) that the Company was experiencing a drop-off in customer confidence; (4) that the Company was facing increasing competitive pressures; (5) that, as result of the foregoing, the Company's financial performance was being negatively impacted; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Signet's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Recent Security Class Actions
According to the law firm press release, CCA, together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates privatized correctional and detention facilities in the United States. The Company owns, operates, and manages prisons and other correctional facilities, and provides inmate residential and prisoner transportation services for governmental agencies. As of 2015, CCA was the largest private corrections company in the United States, and manages more than 65 correction and detention facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia.
According to the law firm press release, NewLink, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on discovering, developing, and commercializing immunotherapeutic products to enhance treatment options for patients with cancer. Among the Company's product candidates is algenpantucel-L, a pancreatic cancer treatment.
According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period defendants issued false and misleading statements about Daimler's compliance with emissions standards and Daimler's purported eco-friendly BlueTEC diesel engines. The lawsuit claims that when the true fact entered the market, the value of Daimler shares fell, damaging investors.
According to the law firm press release, Horsehead, together with its subsidiaries, is a leading U.S. producer of zinc metal and a leading recycler of electric arc furnace dust. The Company derives the majority of its revenues from the sale of zinc. On February 2, 2016, Horsehead filed for protection under the bankruptcy laws and, therefore, is not named as a defendant in this action.
According to the law firm press release, Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes supportive care products primarily designed to assist patients with pain management attributable to their disease, treatment, or therapy. The Company's principal product and source of revenue is Subsys, a sublingual fentanyl spray designed to treat breakthrough cancer pain ("BTCP") in opioid-tolerant patients.
According to the law firm press release, Esperion is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing and commercializing oral low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ("LDL-cholesterol") lowering therapies for patients with hypercholesterolemia. Esperion's lead product candidate is ETC-1002, a once-daily small molecule designed to lower LDL-cholesterol levels. According to Esperion, ETC-1002 is designed to lower LDL-cholesterol while avoiding the side effects associated with other LDL-cholesterol lowering therapies on the market.
According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the accident at Samarco of the bursting of the Fundao Dam resulted in the spillage of toxic waste; (2) Vale had a contract with Samarco that allowed Vale to deposit iron ore waste from its treatment plants from Vale's Alegria mine into the Fundao Dam; (3) Vale's programs and procedures to mitigate environmental, health and safety incidents were inadequate; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about Vale's business and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Valeant had deficient internal controls, (2) Valeant had a relationship with a network of specialty pharmacies used to boost Valeant's sales of its high-priced drugs; (3) the use of specialty pharmacies left Valeant vulnerable to increased regulatory risks, (4) Defendants were under government scrutiny for its financial assistance programs for patients, pricing decisions and the distribution of its products, (5) Valeant faced the risk of scrutiny over its price increases, (6) without using specialty pharmacies, Valeant's financial performance would be negatively impacted, (7) without using specialty pharmacies, Valeant's Class Period performance would have been negatively impacted, (8) Valeant's true relationship with Philidor and the extent of that relationship, (9) Valeant controlled Philidor, (10) Valeant's subsidiary KGA had a secured lien interest on Philidor's ownership, (11) Defendants were engaged in a scheme to manipulate Valeant's stock price, and (12) as a result, Valeant's public statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had deficient internal controls, (2) the lack of internal controls allowed Defendant to exert influence and control over the Company, (3) the Company was engaged in improper and undisclosed material related party transactions, (4) Defendants were engaged in a scheme to manipulate the Company's stock price, and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
