NEW YORK, Nov. 24, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RETA), Evolus, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOLS), Las Vegas Sands Corporation (NYSE: LVS), and Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ: IPHA). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RETA)
Class Period: October 15, 2019 to August 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 14, 2020
Reata is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that develops novel therapeutics for patients with serious or life-threatening diseases by targeting molecular pathways that regulate cellular metabolism and inflammation.
Among Reata’s drug candidates under development is omaveloxolone, which is in Phase 2 clinical development to treat Friedreich's ataxia (“FA”). Following the announcement of positive data from the MOXIe Part 2 study of omaveloxolone for FA in October 2019, the Company represented that it would seek submission for marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).
On August 10, 2020, Reata issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2020 financial results, wherein it disclosed that the FDA is “not convinced that the MOXIe Part 2 results” of the Company's study assessing omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA “will support a single study approval without additional evidence that lends persuasiveness to the results,” and that, “[i]n preliminary comments for [a] meeting, the FDA stated that [Defendants] will need to conduct a second pivotal trial that confirms the mFARS [modified Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale] results of the MOXIe Part 2 study with a similar magnitude of effect.”
On this news, Reata’s stock price fell $51.79 per share, or 33.16%, to close at $104.41 per share on August 10, 2020.
The Complaint, filed on October 15, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the MOXIe Part 2 study results were insufficient to support a single study marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. without additional evidence; (ii) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not accept marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. based on the MOXIe Part 2 study results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Reata class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/REATA
Evolus, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOLS)
Class Period: February 1, 2019 to July 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 15, 2020
Beginning in February 2019, Evolus embarked on a public campaign to hype the market right before the commercial launch of its sole leading product Jeuveau™. To secure an aggressive growth and an rapid influx of revenue, Evolus disseminated dozens of public statements in which they promoted Jeuveau™ as a proprietary formulation of the botulinum toxic type A complex, purportedly developed by Korean bioengineering company Daewoong through years of clinical research and millions of dollars’ worth of investment in research and development. Among other things, Evolus promised investors that it would attain the number two U.S. market position within 24 months of launch.
The investing public learned the real truth about Jeuveau™ on July 6, 2020 when the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued its Initial Final Determination in a case brought by Allergan and Medytox against Evolus, alleging that Evolus stole certain trade secrets to develop Jeuveau™. Coming as a great surprise to the unsuspecting investors, the ITC Judge found that Evolus misappropriated the botulinum toxin strain as well as the manufacturing processes that led to its development and manufacture. To make things even more catastrophic, the ITC Judge recommended a ten-year long ban on Evolus’ ability to import Jeuveau™ into the United States and a ten-year long cease and desist order preventing Evolus from selling Jeuveau™ in the United States.
On this news Evolus’s share price declined sharply, falling 37% over the course of two trading days, to close at $3.35 on July 8, 2020. Following the news of the ITC’s Initial Final Determination and the subsequent price drop of Evolus’s common shares, several securities analysts downgraded Evolus’s rating and significantly lowered the Company’s price target.
The complaint, filed on October 16, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class period defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the real source of botulinum toxin bacterial strain as well as the manufacturing processes used to develop Jeuveau™ originated with and were misappropriated from Medytox; (ii) sufficient evidentiary support existed for the allegations that Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets relating to the botulin toxin strain and the manufacturing processes for the development of Jeuveau™; (iii) as a result, Evolus faced a real threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import, marketing, and sale of Jeuveau™; which in turn (iv) seriously threatened Evolus’ ability to commercialize Jeuveau™ in the United States and generate revenue; and (v) any revenues generated from the sale of Jeuveau™ were based on Evolus’ unlawful activities, including the misappropriation of trade secrets and secret manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.
For more information on the Evolus class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/EOLS
Las Vegas Sands Corporation (NYSE: LVS)
Class Period: February 27, 2016 to September 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 21, 2020
Las Vegas Sands was founded in 1988 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops, owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the U.S., which offer various amenities.
Las Vegas Sands’ properties include, among others, the Marina Bay Sands resort in Singapore, which operates a casino.
On July 19, 2020, Bloomberg News reported that Las Vegas Sands had settled a lawsuit brought by a former patron, Wang Xi (“Xi”), meeting his demand for a S$9.1 million ($6.5 million) payment. Xi reportedly sued the Marina Bay Sands casino in 2019 to recover S$9.1 million of his funds that the casino allegedly transferred to other patrons from his casino deposit accounts in 2015 without his approval, which triggered a probe into the casino by local authorities. Bloomberg News also reported that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) “is also scrutinizing whether anti-money laundering procedures had been breached in the way the Singapore casino handles high rollers.”
On this news, Las Vegas Sands’ stock price fell $1.41 per share, or 2.9%, to close at $47.28 per share on July 20, 2020.
Then, on September 16, 2020, Bloomberg reported that Marina Bay Sands “has hired a law firm to conduct a new investigation into employee transfers of more than $1 billion in gamblers’ money to third parties[.]” The article quoted the Singapore Casino Regulatory Authority (“CRA”) as stating that “there were weaknesses in [Marina Bay Sands’] casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers[.]”
On this news, Las Vegas Sands’ stock price fell $2.18 per share, or 4.2%, to close at $49.67 per share on September 16, 2020.
The complaint, filed on October 22, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) weaknesses existed in Marina Bay Sands’ casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers; (ii) the Marina Bay Sands’ casino was consequently prone to illicit fund transfers that implicated, among other issues, the transfer of customer funds to unauthorized persons and potential breaches in the Company’s anti-money laundering procedures; (iii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against the Company, as well as investigation and increased oversight by regulatory authorities; (iv) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures; (v) consequently, all the foregoing issues were untimely disclosed; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Las Vegas Sands class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LVS
Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ: IPHA)
Class Period: March 10, 2020 to September 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 22, 2020
On September 8, 2020, the Company submitted to the SEC a Form 6-K containing a press release summarizing the results of the first half of 2020, ended June 30, 2020 (the “1H2020 Results”). In the 1H2020 Results, defendants abruptly announced a change in the long-touted payment scheme with AstraZeneca.
On this news, Innate’s American Depositary Share (“ADS”) prices dropped $1.62, or over 26.6%, from closing at $6.07 on September 4, 2020, the previous trading day, to open at $4.82 on September 8, 2020, and declined throughout the trading day to close at $4.45.
The complaint, filed on October 23, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innate touted the results of their various Phase 2 trials as being within expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure investors that they were eligible for the $100 million payment upon first dosing of Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely disclose their renegotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100 million payment into two $50 million payments, to be partially contingent on performance during the Phase 3 trials; and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the Innate Pharma class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/IPHA
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com