May 17, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm reports that its securities investigation of Prothena Corporation continues, and that on May 15, 2018, a securities class-action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, against Prothena Corporation (NASDAQ: PRTA) and certain of its current and former executive officers on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Prothena’s publicly-traded common stock between October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The class action complaint against Prothena and certain of Prothena’s senior executives allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.
Investors Who Purchased the Securities of Prothena Between October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018 Are Encouraged to Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. To Discuss the Class Action Investigation and Potential Legal Options. Prothena investors have until July 16, 2018 to File a Motion with the Court to Serve as Lead Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, the class action against Prothena
. . . arises from Defendants misrepresentations and material omissions regarding NEOD001’s clinical trial results and prospects for approval. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants cited the “best response” results of Prothena’s ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical study of NEOD001 as evidence that the drug was effective, while withholding relevant trial data showing that NEOD001 was not an effective treatment for AL amyloidosis. In addition, Defendants made misleading comparisons of NEOD001’s “best response” rates against prior studies that measured sustained responses after a specified period of time, and falsely told investors that Prothena’s ongoing Phase 1/2 study provided a strong basis for late-stage Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies of NEOD001. In truth, the full Phase 1/2 study data demonstrated that NEOD001 was not an effective treatment for AL amyloidosis and did not provide an adequate basis for the late-stage Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies. (Emphasis added)
Further, the complaint states:
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants continued to tout the interim results of the Company’s Phase 1/2 study to create the impression that NEOD001 would obtain final approval after completion of its late-stage Phase 2b PRONTO and Phase 3 VITAL studies. For example, on September 12, 2016, during the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference, Defendant Tran B. Nguyen . . ., the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, stated that the “exciting findings” from the Phase 1/2 expansion study “has to go back to what does it say about PRONTO and VITAL.” Analysts accepted Defendants’ positive statements regarding NEOD001’s efficacy and the Phase 1/2 study results[] and viewed the Company’s Phase 1/2 study results as indicative of the likely success of the ongoing Phase 2b and Phase 3 trials. For example, on December 5, 2016, a Credit Suisse analyst noted that the final Phase 1/2 study results helped “derisk the ongoing PRONTO and VITAL studies.”
In truth, Prothena’s “best response” analyses did not present a fair representation of the efficacy of NEOD001, particularly when compared to prior studies. What Prothena referred to as the “best response” rate was selected by the Company from among all the data points in their study. After cherry-picking the best response among the available data points for each patient, Prothena then compared that result to studies that used a single data point at the end of a predetermined length of time, creating a false impression that NEOD001 was effective. Prothena never disclosed the full results of its Phase 1/2 testing – namely, the month-to-month response rate of each patient during the study – which would have permitted investors to conduct a fair comparison against the historical data. (Emphasis added)
Prothena Announces Discontinuance of Development of Drug for Treatment of AL Amyloidosis
On April 23, 2018, Prothena Corporation announced that it
. . . is discontinuing development of NEOD001, an investigational antibody that was being evaluated for the treatment of AL amyloidosis. The decision was based on results from the Phase 2b PRONTO study and a futility analysis of the Phase 3 VITAL study.
Based on the results from the Phase 2b PRONTO study, which did not meet its primary or secondary endpoints, [Prothena] asked the independent data monitoring committee (DMC) of the Phase 3 VITAL study to review a futility analysis of the ongoing VITAL study. The DMC recommended discontinuation of the VITAL study for futility. [Prothena] therefore decided to discontinue all development of NEOD001, including the VITAL study as well as the open label extension studies. (Emphasis added)
Prothena Stock Drops $25.34, or 68.78%, to Close at $11.50 on April 23, 2018
Based on Prothena’s announcement regarding the discontinuance of the development of NEOD001, Prothena’s stock dropped almost 70%, thereby injuring investors.
Prothena Investors and Shareholders
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Prothena stock during the Class Period and have questions or concerns about the class action lawsuit or your potential legal rights, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Investors who purchased Prothena stock during the Class Period and suffered damages have until July 16, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Please note that no class has been certified in the above action, and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain an attorney of your choice. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may serve together as “lead plaintiff.” Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
May 11, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. reports that on May 10, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against InnerWorkings, Inc. (NASDAQ:INWK) and certain of its officers in United States District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of a class of investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the securities of InnerWorkings between August 11, 2015 and May 7, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The class action complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) InnerWorkings’ financial statements for the years ending December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, as well as all interim periods, contained errors that required restating; and (ii) as a result, InnerWorkings’ financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The class action seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Investors Who Purchased the Securities of Innerworkings Between August 11, 2015 and May 7, 2018 Are Encouraged to Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. To Discuss the Class Action Lawsuit and Their Potential Legal Options. Investors Who Purchased the Stock of InnerWorkings Have Until July 9, 2018 To Seek Appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
InnerWorkings Files Form 8-K “Non-Reliance on Previously Issued Financial Statements or a Related Audit Report or Completed Interim Review”
On May 7, 2018, InnerWorkings reported in a Form 8-K filing that its Audit Committee of the Board of Directors
. . . concluded that [InnerWorkings] will postpone the release of its first quarter 2018 financial results and conference call due to errors in [its] historical financial statements identified by [InnerWorkings] during the course of its first quarter financial reporting close process. The Company will be restating its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, and all interim periods within those years. Accordingly, investors should no longer rely upon the Company’s previously issued financial statements for these periods, any earnings releases or other communications relating to these periods, or projections or estimates for any future periods. This decision was reached after discussions with the Company’s senior management and outside advisors. (Emphasis added)
InnerWorkings’ Form 8-K filing also stated that
[b]ecause of the Company’s ongoing review of certain adjustments, [InnerWorkings] requires additional time to complete an analysis of all necessary adjustments and to determine the extent of the corrections that may be required to its historical financial statements. Based on its preliminary assessment, [InnerWorkings] estimates the aggregate impact of these corrections on income before income taxes as follows:
- For the year ended December 31, 2017, a decrease in income before income taxes of $2.5 – $4.5 million;
- For the year ended December 31, 2016, a decrease in income before income taxes of $1.5 – $2.5 million; and
- For the year ended December 31, 2015, an increase in income before income taxes of $0.5 – $1.5 million
[InnerWorkings] has previously concluded in certain of the periods requiring restatement that its controls over financial reporting were effective. In certain of the other periods, including as of December 31, 2017, the Company previously concluded that its controls over financial reporting were ineffective due to material weaknesses in certain internal controls. As a result of the material weakness relating to the restatement described above, the Company has now concluded that its controls over financial reporting were ineffective in all of the aforementioned periods. Accordingly, the Company will restate its disclosures for the affected periods to include the identification of a material weakness related to its restatement. The Company is actively engaged in remediating the material weaknesses. (Emphasis added)
INWK Stock Drops on the News of the Company’s Historical Financial Statement Errors
On the news of INWK’s delay in reporting its Q1 2018 financials and the need to restate its financials, the share price of InnerWorkings fell $.062, or 6.4%, to close at $9.06 on May 8, 2018.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
Investors and Shareholders of InnerWorkings
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, the securities of InnerWorkings during the Class Period and have questions or concerns about the class action lawsuit or your potential legal rights, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Investors who purchased InnerWorkings’ securities during the Class Period and suffered damages have until July 9, 2018 to file a motion with the Court to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Please note that no class has been certified in the above action, and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain an attorney of your choice. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may serve together as “lead plaintiff.” Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
May 11, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. has commenced a securities investigation on behalf of Symantec Corporation (NASDAQ: SYMC) investors to determine whether Symantec or its officers violated federal securities laws or were involved in other unlawful business practices.
Symantec’s Financial Results and Guidance May Be Subject to Change Based on Its Internal Investigation
On May 10, 2018, Symantec issued a press release reporting its “Fiscal Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2018 Results,” which stated, in pertinent part:
The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors has commenced an internal investigation in connection with concerns raised by a former employee. The Audit Committee has retained independent counsel and other advisors to assist it in its investigation. The Company has voluntarily contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission to advise it that an internal investigation is underway, and the Audit Committee intends to provide additional information to the SEC as the investigation proceeds. The investigation is in its early stages and the Company cannot predict the duration or outcome of the investigation. [Symantec’s] financial results and guidance may be subject to change based on the outcome of the Audit Committee investigation. It is unlikely that the investigation will be completed in time for the Company to file its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 30, 2018 in a timely manner. (Emphasis added)
Symantec Stock Drops Significantly During After-Hours Trading on May 10, 2018
On the news of Symantec’s internal investigation, SYMC’s shares dropped significantly. According to TheStreet:
Symantec . . . shares plunged in pre-market trading Friday after the cyber security firm said an internal investigation could delay the filing of it[s] annual report and alter its weaker-than-expected sales and earnings forecasts.
Symantec, which makes the Norton Antivirus and LifeLock security services, said concerns raised by a former employee, which it did not provide further detail, prompted the probe and that it had retained independent counsel and notified the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The revelation followed the Mountainview, Calif.-based group’s first quarter earnings report, which included a softer-than-anticipated full year revenue forecast of between $4.76 billion and $4.9 billion and earnings of between $1.50 and $1.65 per share.
. . .
Symantec shares plummeted 24.3% in pre-market trading Friday, indicating an opening bell price of $22.09 each, a move that would lop more than $4.2 billion from the company’s market value and pull the stock to the lowest level since August 2016. (Emphasis added)
Symantec Stockholders & Investors
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Symantec securities and have questions or concerns about Kehoe Law Firm’s securities investigation or your potential legal claims, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
May 8, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is conducting a securities investigation on behalf of investors and shareholders of Flex Ltd. (NASDAQGS: FLEX) to determine whether Flex and certain of its officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
Flex Reports Q4 and Fiscal 2018 Results – Discloses Allegations of Improper Accounting of Obligations in a Customer Contract and Certain Related Reserves
On April 26, 2018, Flex, “the Sketch-to-Scale™ solutions provider that designs and builds Intelligent Products for a Connected World™,” issued a press release which disclosed that
. . . the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, with the assistance of independent outside counsel, is undertaking an independent investigation of allegations made by an employee including that [Flex] improperly accounted for obligations in a customer contract and certain related reserves. The independent outside counsel also notified the San Francisco office of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the allegations and that it will report the findings of the independent investigation upon its conclusion.
Flex Stock Drops Over 21% On the News of the Accounting Allegations
On the news of the accounting allegations, the stock of Flex dropped more than $3.61 per share, or greater than 21.6%, to close at $13.03 per share on April 27, 2018.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
Flex Stock Drops Over 21% On the News of the Accounting Allegations
On the news of the accounting allegations, the stock of Flex dropped more than $3.61 per share, or more than 21.6%, to close at $13.03 per share on April 27, 2018.
Securities Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Flex
On May 8, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against Flex Ltd. and the Company’s CEO and CFO in United States District Court, Northern District of California, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Investors Who Purchased, Or Otherwise Acquired, Flex Ordinary Shares Between January 26, 2017 and April 26, 2018, Inclusive (the “Class Period”), Are Encouraged to Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. To Discuss Their Potential Legal Claims and Options. Investors Who Purchased Flex Securities Have Until July 7, 2018 To Seek Appointment As Lead Plaintiff.
According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Flex Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the business, operations, and prospects of Flex. Specifically, the Flex Defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak and deficient; (ii) that Flex had improperly accounted for obligations in a customer contract and certain related reserves; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the financial statements of Flex and the Flex Defendants about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The complaint also alleges that as a result of the Flex Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the securities of Flex, Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.
Flex Shareholders and Investors
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Flex securities and have questions or concerns about the securities investigation or your potential legal rights, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Investors who purchased Flex securities during the Class Period and suffered damages have until July 7, 2018 to file a motion with the Court to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Please note that no class has been certified in the above action, and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain an attorney of your choice. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may serve together as “lead plaintiff.” Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Apr 26, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
FTC Charges LendingClub with Falsely Promising Consumers Loans with “No Hidden Fees”
LC Stock Drops More than 15% to Close at $2.77 Per Share on April 25, 2018
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating securities claims on behalf of investors of LendingClub Corporation (NYSE:LC) and purchasers of LendingClub’s Member Payment Dependent Notes. The class action investigation focuses on whether LendingClub issued materially misleading business information to the investing public or engaged in other unlawful business practices.
Investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, LC stock shares or LendingClub’s Member Payment Dependent Notes can speak privately about the securities class action investigation by contacting John A. Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected].
LendingClub’s Fee Claims and Amount Consumers Would Receive “Could be Perceived as Deceptive”
On April 25, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it charged the LendingClub Corporation, d/b/a Lending Club, with falsely promising consumers they would receive a loan with “no hidden fees,” when, in actuality, the company deducted hundreds or even thousands of dollars in hidden up-front fees from the loans.
The FTC’s complaint stated that Lending Club recognized that its hidden fee was a significant problem for consumers, and an internal review noted that its claims about the fee and the amount consumers would receive “could be perceived as deceptive as it is likely to mislead the consumer.” An attorney for one of the company’s largest investors also warned the company that the “relative obscurity” of the up-front fee in light of the company’s prominent “no hidden fees” representation could make the company a target for a law enforcement action.
According to the FTC, Lending Club ignored these and other warnings and, over time, made its deceptive “no hidden fees” claim even more prominent.
The FTC also alleges that Lending Club falsely told loan applicants that “Investors Have Backed Your Loan” while knowing that many of them would never get a loan, a practice that delayed applicants from seeking loans elsewhere. In addition, in numerous instances, Lending Club has withdrawn double payments from consumers’ accounts and has continued to charge those who cancelled automatic payments or paid off their loans, which costs consumers overdraft fees and prevents them from making other payments. In addition, Lending Club failed to get consumers’ acknowledgment of its information-sharing policy as required by law.
Lending Club is charged with violating the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Prospective Borrowers Lured by Promises of “No Hidden Fees”
According to the LendingClub Corporation complaint:
[Lending Club] offers unsecured consumer loans through its website, www.lendingclub.com. Defendant advertises its loan offerings and handles consumer interactions during the life of the application and loan, including application processing, assessment of creditworthiness, and loan servicing, although the loans are formally issued by a bank.
[Lending Club] lures prospective borrowers by promising “no hidden fees,” but when the loan funds arrive in consumers’ bank accounts, they are hundreds or even thousands of dollars short of expectations due to a hidden up-front fee that Defendant deducts from consumers’ loan proceeds. [Lending Club] is persisting in this conduct despite warnings from its own compliance department that Defendant’s concealment of the up-front fee is “likely to mislead the consumer.” Defendant also has misled consumers about whether their loan applications have been approved, stringing consumers along by, for example, telling consumers, “Hooray! Investors Have Backed Your Loan” when Defendant knew many such consumers would never receive a loan. Based on these misrepresentations, consumers believed that Defendant’s funds were forthcoming, and did not apply for credit with Defendant’s competitors. And with numerous consumers who have received a loan, [Lending Club] has withdrawn double payments from consumers’ accounts and continued to charge consumers who cancelled automatic payments or even paid off their loans entirely, costing consumers overdraft fees and preventing them from making other payments.
In addition, [Lending Club] failed to provide consumers with clear and conspicuous privacy notices.
(Emphasis added)
Up-Front Charge Information Hidden from Consumers
The FTC’s complaint alleges that consumers learned that what goes “straight into [their] account” is not the total represented during the online application process as the “Loan Amount.” Instead, what consumers received an amount reduced by hundreds or thousands of dollars. This, according to the FTC, is because Lending Club takes a hefty portion of the Loan Amount up front as an origination fee.
In response to consumer concerns about the undisclosed or inadequately disclosed up-front charge, Lending Club’s own quarterly complaint reviews have proposed “highlighting [the] origination fee.” According to one in-house compliance review, “The origination fee is disclosed on the offer page tooltip” – a small green-and-white hyperlinked question mark – “but is not readily apparent unless an applicant clicks on the tooltip. This omission could be perceived as deceptive as it is likely to mislead the consumer.”
One of Lending Club’s largest investors, according to the FTC’s complaint, warned the company that the fee “is not clear and conspicuous and could be subject to a UDAAP claim,” referring to an unfair or deceptive acts and practices claim. Additionally, the FTC says the investor’s legal counsel told Lending Club that despite the company’s prominent “no hidden fees” claim, “the documents we reviewed contain a large ($300 to $450) origination fee that only appears once” in “relative obscurity” – a practice the person said could result in law enforcement action.
The FTC alleges that Lending Club did not respond to the warnings. According to the complaint, “Rather than improving over time, [Lending Club’s] violations have become more egregious over the years,” with the company increasing the prominence of the “no hidden fees” claim and decreasing the already small, hyperlinked tooltip.
Allegedly, Lending Club told consumers, for example, “Great news! Investors have backed your loan 100%!,” when there were still additional obstacles for prospective borrowers, including a searching “back-end” credit review, consisting, among other things, of an additional credit inquiry, a phone call to the consumer, requests for additional documentation, and a detailed review of the consumer’s tax and bank records. Frequent back-end denials were issued, even to consumers who provided Lending Club with all the required documentation. As a result, the FTC alleges that borrowers who received the congratulatory messages, ultimately, were rejected, making Lending Club’s claims deceptive.
Lastly, in numerous instances, Lending Club, allegedly, made unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ bank accounts by, for example, charging borrowers double payments in a single month, by continuing to make withdrawals from consumers who have paid off their loans, or by taking money from accounts when consumers have told Lending Club they want to pay by check or by a different account. Most consumers, according to the FTC, only learned of Lending Club’s unauthorized charges when they checked their bank statements or when they found out their accounts were overdrawn.
LendingClub Corporation Shareholders & Investors
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, LendingClub Corporation securities and wish to discuss your potential legal rights or claims with an attorney, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Apr 24, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Prothena Discontinues Development of NEOD001 for AL Amyloidosis; PRTA Stock Drops $25.34, or 68.78%, to Close at $11.50 on April 23, 2018
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is conducting a securities investigation on behalf of investors of Prothena Corporation plc (NASDAQ: PRTA) to determine whether Prothena and certain of its officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
Prothena Announces Discontinuance of Development of Drug for Treatment of AL Amyloidosis
On April 23, 2018, Prothena Corporation announced that it
. . . is discontinuing development of NEOD001, an investigational antibody that was being evaluated for the treatment of AL amyloidosis. The decision was based on results from the Phase 2b PRONTO study and a futility analysis of the Phase 3 VITAL study.
Based on the results from the Phase 2b PRONTO study, which did not meet its primary or secondary endpoints, [Prothena] asked the independent data monitoring committee (DMC) of the Phase 3 VITAL study to review a futility analysis of the ongoing VITAL study. The DMC recommended discontinuation of the VITAL study for futility. [Prothena] therefore decided to discontinue all development of NEOD001, including the VITAL study as well as the open label extension studies. (Emphasis added)
The Phase 3 VITAL Study
Prothena, “a clinical stage biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of novel therapies in the neuroscience and orphan categories,” also announced that
The VITAL Amyloidosis Study was a Phase 3 global, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study of NEOD001 vs. placebo in treatment-naïve patients with AL amyloidosis and cardiac dysfunction, with both arms of the study receiving standard of care. The composite primary endpoint was event-based, with all-cause mortality or cardiac hospitalizations as events.
- The futility analysis, based on 103 adjudicated events of the 156 events specified to complete the study, was not statistically significant.
- The hazard ratio was 0.84 favoring NEOD001 vs. control arm. (Emphasis added)
Prothena’s Steep Stock Drop
According to the San Francisco Business Times:
The failure of Prothena Corp.’s main experimental drug in a mid-stage clinical trial led to a massive selloff of its stock Monday, a nearly 70 percent decline in its share price and the decision to stop development of the drug.
. . .
In AL amyloidosis, misfolded amyloid proteins are deposited in tissue, causing progressive organ damage, including heart failure. An estimated 30,000 to 45,000 people in the United States and Europe have been diagnosed with the condition.
Prothena shares had already dropped 47 percent from their 52-week high, Bloomberg noted, after short-sellers last year raised concerns about NEOD-001’s effectiveness, compared to existing treatments, and Prothena’s chief medical officer, Dr. Sarah Noonberg, quit her $465,000 job in February, nine months after joining the company with a $100,000 hire-on bonus.
It was reported by Bloomberg that Prothena’s “shares lost more than two-thirds of their value after having already fallen 30 percent in the prior 12 months.” According to Bloomberg:
Muddy Waters Capital founder Carson Block attacked Prothena last June, saying NEOD001 didn’t help patients much more than existing therapies. Five months later, Kerrisdale Capital Management’s Sahm Adrangi predicted that the drug would fail the Phase 2b study, dubbed ‘Pronto.’ Investor concerns only grew from there as within weeks, they learned that results from a late-stage study of NEOD001 would take a year longer than planned. And then the chief medical officer abruptly resigned in February.
Prothena Corporation Investors and Shareholders
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Prothena Corporation stock and have questions or concerns about the securities investigation or your potential legal rights, please contact John A. Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
