Sep 16, 2019 | Securities Class Action Archive
A class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of MacroGenics, Inc. (“MacroGenics” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: MGNX) during the period between February 6, 2019 and June 3, 2019, both dates inclusive, (the “Class Period”).
The class action lawsuit seeks to recover damages and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against MacroGenics and certain of the Company’s officers who, allegedly, made materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period.
If you purchased the securities of MacroGenics during the Class Period February 6, 2019 through June 3, 2019, both dates inclusive, and suffered financial losses, please click Join a Securities Class Action to participate in the lawsuit or contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], or John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], to learn more about the lawsuit or the securities investigation.
According to the complaint, MacroGenics, “a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of antibody-based therapeutics designed to control the human immune response for the treatment of cancer in the United States,” has a “pipeline of immune-oncology product candidates,” which “includes margetuximab, an investigational monoclonal antibody that targets the HER2 oncoprotein. HER2 is expressed by tumor cells in breast, gastroesophageal and other solid tumors.”
The complaint states that “[t]he SOPHIA study is a randomized, open-label Phase III clinical trial evaluating margetuximab plus chemotherapy compared to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive metastic breast cancer.”
Throughout the Class Period, the MacroGenics defendants, according to the complaint:
. . . violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements to the investing public and/or failing to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company’s Phase III SOPHIA trial. Specifically, defendants concealed material information and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had conducted the PFS [“progression-free survival”] and first interim OS [“overall survival”] analyses for the SOPHIA trial by no later than October 10, 2018; (b) the October 2018 PFS analysis showed a 0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (c) the October 2018 OS interim analysis did not produce a statistically significant result and the interim OS Kaplan-Meier curves crossed in several spots (thereby violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late. [Emphasis added.]
According to the lawsuit, the defendants’ conduct during the Class Period resulted in the common stock of MacroGenics to trade at artificially inflated prices, including at $25.60 per share on February 6, 2019.
On May 13, 2019, the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, according to the complaint, posted a SOPHIA study abstract on the Internet disclosing the October 2018 PFS analysis resulting in a 0.9 month improvement in progression-free survival.
On this news, the price of MacroGenics stock declined 7% to close at $16.25 per share on May 13, 2019.
On June 4, 2019, MacroGenics disclosed additional SOPHIA trial data which, according to the complaint, revealed that MacroGenics had conducted the PFS and OS analyses in October 2018, and the overall survival analyses for the SOPHIA trial demonstrated Kaplan-Meier curves crossing at several spots with late separation.
On this news, the price of MacroGenics stock declined 17% to close at $15.58 per share on June 4, 2019.
Sep 11, 2019 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Sonim Technologies, Inc. (“Sonim” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: SONM) to determine whether Sonim or any of its officers violated federal securities laws.
If you invested in Sonim and suffered losses or wish to learn more about Kehoe Law Firm’s securities investigation, please contact either John Kehoe, Esq, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected].
On September 10, 2019, Sonim, “a leading U.S. provider of ultra-rugged mobility solutions designed specifically for task workers physically engaged in their work environments,” issued “revised financial guidance for fiscal 2019.”
Specifically, the Company stated the following:
Net revenues are expected to be flat or slightly below 2018 net revenues of $135.7 million reported in fiscal 2018;
GAAP net loss, defined as net revenues less cost of goods sold, selling, general and administrative expenses, operating expenses, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses, is expected to be up to $15 million;
Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP metric, is expected to be a loss of up to $5 million. [Emphasis added.]
Sonim also stated that “[s]everal factors have collectively contributed to [Sonim’s] revised financial outlook for fiscal 2019, primarily stemming from changes in U.S. wireless carrier forecasts for the launch of Sonim’s new products as well as launch delays due to software issues related to these new introductions.”
Additionally, the Company stated that it “. . . bases its forecasts on its wireless carrier’s forecasts of their purchase of Sonim’s products. Over the past few weeks, these carriers lowered those forecasts for Sonim’s new product introductions. This summer Sonim had expected, based on customer input, carriers to subsidize Sonim phones post-launch, to place new releases in retail locations, and to sign up push-to-talk customers to Sonim’s new generation of phones. In each of these cases, there have been significant delays and changes in the rollout of these efforts, resulting in a reduction of Sonim’s expected net revenues in the second half of the year.” [Emphasis added.]
Sonim announced it “ . . . has experienced technical challenges related to its XP8 smartphone and other general non-systemic, accessory-related issues in its feature phones, which cumulatively resulted in lost sales momentum. These challenges have diverted resources away from launching smaller Tier 2 carrier customers and, as such, delayed the launch of Sonim devices to their customer base.”
On this news, Sonim shares fell significantly, closing down 46.74% on September 10, 2019, thereby injuring Sonim investors.
Sep 10, 2019 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
On September 8, 2019, Charlotteagenda.com reported (“Boy Scouts’ information exposed during brief data breach”) that “. . . Trails End said it notified Boy Scouts of America and local councils of ‘a data incident’ that a web developer noticed. Certain information — including children’s full names, dates of birth, email addresses, phone number, parent names, favorite product and affiliation (council, district, unit) — was visible through a search.”
According to the news report, “Boy Scouts nationwide sell popcorn to raise funds for activities like camping trips,” and “[t]o facilitate the sales process, Boy Scouts of America uses a third-party fundraising organization called Trails End.” Further, according to Charlotteagenda.com, “[i]t’s also unclear how long the information was exposed,” as well as “how many users’ information was vulnerable during the ‘incident,” and whether it was a local issue or a national one.”
On September 9, 2019, scmagazine.com reported (“North Carolina Boy Scouts PII compromised“) that “[a] third-party vendor that handles sales for the Boy Scouts of America suffered a data breach exposing the PII of up to 12,900 Mecklenburg County Council scouts.” Additonally, scmagazine.com reported that Trails End last week told the North Carolina Scouts that information including children’s full names, dates of birth, email addresses, phone number, parent names, favorite product and affiliation (council, district, unit) were compromised, according to the Charlotte Agenda.”
Have You Been Impacted by A Data Breach?
If so, please either contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Partner Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected] for a free, no-obligation case evaluation of your facts to determine whether your privacy rights have been violated and whether there is a basis for a data privacy class action.
Examples of the type of relief sought by data privacy class actions, include, but are not limited to, reimbursement of identity theft losses and of out-of-pocket costs paid by data breach victims for protective measures such as credit monitoring services, credit reports, and credit freezes; compensation for time spent responding to the breach; imposition of credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, paid for by the defendant company; and improvements to the defendant company’s data security systems.
Data privacy class actions are brought on a contingent-fee basis; thus, plaintiffs and the class members do not pay out-of-pocket attorney’s fees or litigation costs. Subject to court approval, attorney’s fees and litigation costs are derived from the recovery obtained for the class.
Aug 22, 2019 | Securities Class Action Archive
A class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Burford Capital Limited securities between March 18, 2015 and August 7, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
If you purchased securities of Burford Capital Limited (“Burford Capital” or the “Company”) during the Class Period and suffered losses, please click Join a Securities Class Action to participate in the lawsuit or contact either John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], to learn more about the lawsuit or the securities investigation.
Burford Capital shareholders have 60 days from August 21, 2019 to move the Court to be appointed lead plaintiff.
According to the class action complaint, the Burford Capital Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Burford Capital has been manipulating its metrics, including return on invested capital (“ROIC”) and internal rate of return (“IRR”), to create a misleading picture of investment returns to investors; (2) these manipulations hid the fact that the Company is at high risk for a liquidity crunch and is already arguably insolvent; and (3) as a result of the aforementioned misconduct, Defendants’ statements about Burford Capital’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On August 7, 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. short-seller Muddy Waters accused the litigation-finance firm Burford Capital Ltd. . . . of poor governance and mismarking the value of legal cases it invests in, wiping around 50% off the value of the U.K. firm’s shares.”
The Wall Street Journal also reported that “Muddy Waters, headed by Carson Block, on Wednesday said Burford’s stock valuation and earnings are based on ‘meaningless’ metrics that the company manipulates. The firm released a report and video interview with Mr. Block making the claims at the start of London trading and the shares swooned.”
Additionally, The Wall Street Journal reported that “. . . Muddy Waters said Burford’s management stands to benefit from aggressively marking up the value of legal cases because it causes the stock owned by the company’s executives to rise in value. It criticized the company’s governance, including a lack of turnover on Burford’s board since it listed its shares in London in 2009.”
On this news, shares of Burford Capital dropped $5.90, or 42.45%, to close at $8.00 on August 7, 2019 and Burford Capital’s ADRs fell $6.15, or 43.93%, damaging Burford Capital investors.
Purchasers of Burford Capital securities during the Class Period who suffered losses are encouraged to contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected] , or John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], to learn more about the securities investigation.
Aug 21, 2019 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Exposed Database Reportedly Found On One of MoviePass’s Subdomains – Records Included Sensitive User Information
On August 20, 2019, TechCrunch.com reported that
. . . ticket subscription service MoviePass has exposed tens of thousands of customer card numbers and personal credit cards because a critical server was not protected with a password.
Mossab Hussein, a security researcher at Dubai-based cybersecurity firm SpiderSilk, found an exposed database on one of the company’s many subdomains. The database was massive, containing 161 million records at the time of writing and growing in real time. Many of the records were normal computer-generated logging messages used to ensure the running of the service — but many also included sensitive user information, such as MoviePass customer card numbers.
These MoviePass customer cards are like normal debit cards: they’re issued by Mastercard and store a cash balance, which users who sign up to the subscription service can use to pay to watch a catalog of movies. For a monthly subscription fee, MoviePass uses the debit card to load the full cost of the movie, which the customer then uses to pay for the movie at the cinema. [Emphasis added.]
Further, TechCrunch.com reported that
[TechCrunch.com] reviewed a sample of 1,000 records and removed the duplicates. A little over half contained unique MoviePass debit card numbers. Each customer card record had the MoviePass debit card number and its expiry date, the card’s balance and when it was activated.
The database had more than 58,000 records containing card data — and was growing by the minute.
[TechCrunch] also found records containing customers’ personal credit card numbers and their expiry date — which included billing information, including names and postal addresses. Among the records [TechCrunch] reviewed, [TechCrunch] found records with enough information to make fraudulent card purchases.
Some records, however, contained card numbers that had been masked except for the last four digits.
Importantly, TechCrunch.com reported that “[i]t’s understood that the database may have been exposed for months, according to data collected by cyberthreat intelligence firm RiskIQ, which first detected the system in late June.” [Emphasis added.]
Have You Been Impacted by A Data Breach?
If so, please either contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Partner Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected] for a free, no-obligation case evaluation of your facts to determine whether your privacy rights have been violated and whether there is a basis for a data privacy class action.
Examples of the type of relief sought by data privacy class actions, include, but are not limited to, reimbursement of identity theft losses and of out-of-pocket costs paid by data breach victims for protective measures such as credit monitoring services, credit reports, and credit freezes; compensation for time spent responding to the breach; imposition of credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, paid for by the defendant company; and improvements to the defendant company’s data security systems.
Data privacy class actions are brought on a contingent-fee basis; thus, plaintiffs and the class members do not pay out-of-pocket attorney’s fees or litigation costs. Subject to court approval, attorney’s fees and litigation costs are derived from the recovery obtained for the class.
