Jan 20, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Vodafone ADR Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Vodafone Group plc (NASDAQ:VOD)
Vodafone’s website states that “Vodafone Group Plc is one of the world’s leading telecommunications groups, with a significant presence in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific through the company’s subsidiary undertakings, joint ventures, associated undertakings and investments.”
On January 18, 2018, a federal securities class action (Ferrare v. Vodafone Group Public Limited Company, et al, No. 18-00466) was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than the Vodafone Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Vodafone American Depositary Receipts from February 11, 2015 through January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Vodafone Defendants’ violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Vodafone ADR class action complaint alleges that the Vodafone Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Vodafone had contravened Australian law by permitting customers to purchase pre-paid mobile phones without first verifying their identities, and, as a result, Vodafone’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Australian Communications and Media Authority Announcement & Vodafone ADR Price Drop
As previously posted (“Vodafone Breaches Prepaid Mobile Service Verification Rules”), on January 10, 2018, post-market, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (“ACMA)” announced that “Vodafone Network Pty Limited will significantly improve its processes for verifying the identity of prepaid mobile customers under an enforceable undertaking accepted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority,” subsequent to an investigation by the ACMA which disclosed that Vodafone “failed to verify the identity of at least 1,028 customers before activating their prepaid mobile services.” According to the ACMA media release, “[t]he breaches occurred between 6 January 2015 and 6 January 2016. They resulted from changes to Vodafone’s IT systems that allowed customers to self-select online that their identity had been verified in store, without any further check that this had actually occurred.”
The ACMA’s Final Investigation Report stated:
After completing its investigation, the ACMA finds that Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Limited [VHA] . . . has contravened section 2.3 of the Telecommunications (Service Provider – Identity Checks for Prepaid Mobile Carriage Services) Determination 2013 (the Prepaid Determination) on at least 1,028 occasions. As a consequence of these contraventions, the ACMA also finds that VHA contravened subsection 101(1) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (the Act) on at least 1,028 occasions as it did not comply with the service provider rules that apply to it, namely the rules set out in the Prepaid Determination in force under section 99 of the Act. [Emphasis added]
Further, the ACMA report stated that “[i]n February 2016 the ACMA became aware of an option on VHA’s website which allowed customers of its prepaid mobile carriage services to select that their identity had been verified in a store and then proceed to activate their service through use of the website,” and “[t]he ACMA was concerned that the ID-checked in store option appeared to allow customers to activate their prepaid mobile carriage service using the website without VHA necessarily having checked the customer’s identity at the time of sale . . . of the service or at the time of activation as required by the Prepaid Determination.” [Emphasis added]
The ACMA’s Final Investigation Report referred to “ID-checked in store option” as the option which allowed VHA customers to self-select on VHA’s website that their identity had been verified in store followed by activation of their prepaid mobile carriage service.
ACMA News & Vodafone ADR Price Decline
On this news, Vodafone’s American Depositary Receipts declined from a closing price of $32.60 on January 9, 2018 to a closing price of $31.44 on January 11, 2018, an ADR decrease of approximately 3.55%.
Vodafone ADR Purchasers or Acquirers
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Vodafone Group plc American Depositary Receipts from February 11, 2015 through January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive, and have questions or concerns about your potential legal rights or 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].
Jan 18, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
According to Halozyme:
Halozyme is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing and commercializing novel cancer therapies that target the tumor microenvironment. Our lead proprietary program, investigational drug PEGPH20 (pegvorhyaluronidase alfa), applies a unique approach to targeting solid tumors, potentially providing increased immune response and tumor access for co-administered anti-cancer therapies.
Abstract Published Regarding Phase IB/II Randomized Study of HALO’s PEGPH20 as Pancreatic Cancer Treatment
An abstract detailing a Phase IB/II randomized study of Halozyme’s drug PEGPH20 as a treatment for pancreatic cancer in combination with the cancer drug mFFOX was published at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (“ASCO”) in connection with a scheduled presentation at the “2018 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.”
According to the abstract, “addition of PEGPH20 to mFFOX is not recommended for further study and appears to be detrimental” after noting that patients who used the mFFOX+PEGPH20 combination experienced higher percentage levels of “Selected GR 3-4 Toxicity,” such as diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting, more than those who used mFFOX as a monotherapy.
The abstract, “A phase IB/II randomized study of mFOLFIRINOX (mFFOX) + pegylated recombinant human hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) versus mFFOX alone in patients with good performance status metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC): SWOG S1313 (NCT #01959139),” stated that “PEGPH20 with mFFOX caused increased toxicity (mostly GI and TE events) and decreased treatment duration compared to mFFOX alone” and contained the following table reflecting “Selected GR 3-4 Toxicity” and percentage comparisons between mFFOX and mFFOX+PEGPH20:
Halozyme Stock Drop During Intraday Trading & Halozyme Stock Price Target Lowered
Following this news, Halozyme’s share price fell sharply during intraday trading on January 17, 2018.
According to The Motley Fool (“This News Explains Halozyme Therapeutics’ Double-Digit Drop Today”), Halozyme stock shares fell after a Deutsche Bank analyst lowered his price target to $19 from $21 on HALO’s stock. According to The Motley Fool, HALO stock shares fell 10% as of 11.25 a.m. EST on January 17, 2018.
The Motley Fool reported that although the analyst made the decision to keep his HALO stock buy rating, the analyst “noted that the data from the . . . abstract adds ‘incrementally higher-risk to the PEGPH20 program'” and, according to The Motley Fool, “[g]iven the data, it’s hard to disagree with [the analyst’s] assessment.”
Halozyme Stock (NASDAQ:HALO) Shareholders
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating claims on behalf of Halozyme stock investors to determine whether Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. If you purchased Halozyme stock and have questions or concerns about your potential legal rights or 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].
Jan 18, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Federal Securities Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against TESARO on Behalf of a Class of Purchasers or Acquirers of TSRO Securities Between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. previously reported about its investigation of TESARO, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSRO) on behalf of TESARO shareholders.
On January 17, 2018, a federal securities class action (Bowers v. Tesaro Incorporated, et al, No. 18-10086) was filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons, other than the TESARO Defendants, who purchased, or otherwise acquired, TESARO securities between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover damages caused by the TESARO 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, against TESARO and certain of TESARO’s executives.
TESARO Class Action Complaint & TESARO Defendant’s Alleged False and Misleading Statements
According to the TESARO class action complaint:
[TESARO] is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company that identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer therapeutics and oncology supportive care products in the United States.
. . .
At all relevant times, [TESARO’s] product portfolio has included [VARUBI® (rolapitant)], a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. In 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved an oral version of Varubi. On March 14, 2016, [TESARO] announced the submission of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for an intravenous formulation of Varubi to the FDA. 25, On October 25, 2017, Tesaro announced the FDA’s approval of its intravenous version of Varubi.
Throughout the Class Period, [TESARO] Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding [TESARO’s] business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) substantial undisclosed health risks, including anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock, were associated with [TESARO’s] intravenous formulation of Varubi; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, [TESARO’s] shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and damages. [Emphasis added]
TESARO Updates U.S. VARUBI® (rolapitant) Labeling & TSRO Stock Drop
According to the TESARO class action complaint:
On January 12, 2018, post-market, [TESARO] announced that it had updated the U.S. labeling for the intravenous formulation of Varubi after receiving reports of “[a]naphylaxis, anaphylactic shock and other serious hypersensitivity reactions . . . in the post-marketing setting, some requiring hospitalization.” [TESARO] further stated that it “has issued a Dear Healthcare Professional (DHCP) letter.”
On this news, [TESARO’s] share price fell $4.07 or 5.85%, to close at $65.52 on January 16, 2018. [Emphasis added]
Further, according to the TESARO class action complaint, [a]s a result of [TESARO’s] wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of [TESARO’s] securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. [Emphasis added]
TESARO Investors & Shareholders
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired TSRO securities between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, and have questions or concerns about your potential legal rights or 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].
Jan 16, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
TSRO – TESARO, Inc. Update to VARUBI® (rolapitant) U.S. Prescribing Information – TSRO Stock Falls During Intraday Trading
Kehoe Law Firm’s investigation concerns whether TESARO and certain of its officers or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
On January 12, 2018, TESARO announced that it had updated the VARUBI® (rolapitant) injectable emulsion package insert in collaboration with the FDA. The update regarding VARUBI® (rolapitant), indicated for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, resulted from receiving reports of “[a]naphylaxis, anaphylactic shock and other serious hypersensitivity reactions . . . in the postmarketing setting, some requiring hospitalization.” Further, TESARO stated that TESARO “issued a Dear Healthcare Professional (DHCP) letter,” which, along with the “updated full prescribing information,” is available on the VARUBI website.
TESARO’s share price, on this news, fell sharply during intraday trading on January 16, 2018.
“TESARO Announces Updates to the U.S. Prescribing Information for VARUBI® (rolapitant) Injectable Emulsion”
According to TSRO’s January 12, 2018 announcement:
TESARO . . . an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company, . . . announced that it has updated the VARUBI® (rolapitant) injectable emulsion package insert in collaboration with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VARUBI injectable emulsion is a substance P/neurokinin (NK-1) receptor antagonist indicated for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in adults. The changes to the labeling include modifications to the CONTRAINDICATIONS, WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS, and ADVERSE REACTIONS sections.
Following its introduction in late November 2017, TESARO estimates that at least 7,000 doses of VARUBI injectable emulsion have been administered to patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy in the United States. Anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock and other serious hypersensitivity reactions have been reported in the postmarketing setting, some requiring hospitalization. These reactions have occurred during or soon after the infusion of VARUBI injectable emulsion. Most reactions have occurred within the first few minutes of administration. [Emphasis added]
TSRO’s “Dear Health Care Provider Letter”
TESARO’s Dear Health Care Provider Letter, among other things, stated:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of important safety information for VARUBI® (rolapitant) injectable emulsion, a substance P/neurokinin (NK-1) receptor antagonist indicated for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in adults.
Anaphylaxis, Anaphylactic Shock and Other Serious Hypersensitivity Reactions Associated with Use of VARUBI® (rolapitant) Injectable Emulsion
Anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock and other serious hypersensitivity reactions have been reported in the postmarketing setting, some requiring hospitalization. These reactions have occurred during or soon after the infusion of VARUBI® (rolapitant) injectable emulsion. Most reactions have occurred within the first few minutes of administration. Symptoms of anaphylaxis can include wheezing or difficulty breathing; swelling of the face or throat; hives or flushing; itching; abdominal cramping, abdominal pain or vomiting; back pain or chest pain; hypotension or shock.
TSRO – TESARO Investors & Shareholders
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating whether TESARO and certain of TESARO’s officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. If you invested in TSRO securities and have questions or concerns about your potential legal rights or 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].
Jan 15, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Liberty Tax Stock Shareholders: Alleged Ineffective Internal Controls & Inaccurate Financial Reporting
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. continues its investigation to determine whether Liberty Tax and certain of its officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices to the detriment of Liberty Tax stockholders.
On January 12, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, on behalf of all persons and entities, other than the Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased Liberty Tax securities between June 29, 2016 and December 11, 2017, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The Liberty Tax shareholder class action (Mauro v. Liberty Tax, Inc., et al, No. 18-00245) seeks to recover damages caused by the Liberty Tax Defendants’ alleged violations of federal securities laws.
According to the Liberty Tax class action complaint:
Throughout the Class Period, [Liberty Tax] Defendants made a series of false and misleading statements regarding [Liberty Tax’s] disclosure controls and procedures. For example, although [Liberty Tax] Defendants told the investing public that [Liberty Tax] maintained effective internal controls to ensure the accuracy of its financial reporting, investors ultimately learned the opposite was true, i.e. [Liberty Tax’s] internal controls were ineffective and did not ensure accurate financial reporting. The market learned the truth on December 11, 2017, when Liberty Tax filed a Form 8- K with the SEC announcing the sudden resignation of its independent registered public accounting firm, and stated that [Liberty Tax] would delay the filing of its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2017. The market was shocked by this revelation, which caused Liberty Tax stock to react violently, losing 6.3% of its value that day. [Emphasis added]
Liberty Tax Discloses Resignation of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm KPMG LLP
On December 11, 2017, Liberty Tax, Inc. issued a press release disclosing that KPMG LLP resigned as the independent registered public accounting firm of Liberty Tax and that Liberty Tax will delay the filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2017.
According to Liberty Tax’s Form 8-K, dated December 11, 2017 (Liberty Tax_Form 8-K):
KPMG expressed to the Audit Committee and [Liberty Tax] management its concern that the actions of former Chief Executive Officer John T. Hewitt . . . have created an inappropriate tone at the top which leads to ineffective entity level controls over the organization. Prior to the termination of Mr. Hewitt’s employment as Chief Executive Officer of the Company on September 5, 2017, the Audit Committee oversaw an investigation of allegations of misconduct by Mr. Hewitt. In particular, KPMG noted that Mr. Hewitt took actions to replace two independent members of the Board around the time information relating to this investigation appeared in media reports. KPMG also noted that following the replacement by Mr. Hewitt of two Class B directors, the chair of the Audit Committee retired from the Board, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer announced her intention to resign from the Company, and another independent member of the Board announced that he would not stand for reelection at the Company’s next annual meeting. Further, KPMG was made aware that following his termination as Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Hewitt may have continued to interact with franchisees and area developers of the Company. Although Mr. Hewitt stated to KPMG during a meeting on November 9, 2017 that he would not reinsert himself into the management of the Company, in light of Mr. Hewitt’s actions and his ability to control the Board as the sole holder of the Class B common stock, KPMG informed the Audit Committee and management that it has concerns regarding the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as related to integrity and tone at the top and such matters should be evaluated as potential material weaknesses. [Emphasis Added]
Specifically, KPMG informed the Audit Committee and management that Mr. Hewitt’s past and continued involvement in the Company’s business and operations, including his continued interactions with franchisees and area developers of the Company, has led it to no longer be able to rely on management’s representations, and therefore has caused KPMG to be unwilling to be associated with the Company’s consolidated financial statements. In notifying the Company of its resignation, KPMG advised the Audit Committee and management that it is not aware of any information that cause it to question the integrity of current management, but rather that the structural arrangement by which Mr. Hewitt controls the Company is the cause of KPMG’s concerns. KPMG also noted that because certain information known to the Board regarding the reasons that the Board terminated Mr. Hewitt as Chief Executive Officer had not been disclosed to the current Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, KPMG was uncertain as to whether it could continue to rely on management’s representations. [Emphasis Added]
On this news, the share price of Liberty Tax stock fell $0.80 per share, which was more than 6% from the previous Liberty Tax stock closing price, to close at $11.15 per share on December 11, 2017.
Liberty Tax Post Class Period Developments – Bloomberg Reports & Notice of Delinquent Filing
According to the class action complaint, Bloomberg published an article, “Liberty Tax Sec Scandal Draws Investor Suit Targeting Hewitt,” which, among other things, stated that “[a] pension fund is asking a judge to order Hewitt to relinquish his controlling stake in the national tax-preparation service after an internal review found that while running the company, he had sex in his office and hired relatives of female employees with whom he’d had romantic relationships.” Bloomberg also, according to the class action complaint, reported that “Liberty Tax has tumbled 15 percent since Sept. 5, the day before the company fired Hewitt as CEO without disclosing the reasons.[]” [Emphasis added]
Additionally, according to the class action complaint, Liberty Tax issued a press release on December 19, 2017 advising that Liberty Tax, as a result of its failure to timely file its Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending October 31, 2017, received a delinquent filing compliance notice from Nasdaq.
Have You Purchased or Acquired Liberty Tax Stock Shares?
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Liberty Tax (NASDAQ:TAX) stock shares between June 29, 2016 and December 11, 2017, both dates inclusive, and would like to speak privately with a securities attorney to learn whether you may have legal claims, please complete the form to the right or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected] or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Jan 14, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
AMD Stock Shares Down 3.6% Aftermarket After AMD Acknowledges Spectre Security Flaw
On January 11, 2018, SeekingAlpha reported (“AMD drops after acknowledging vulnerability to Spectre flaw”) the following:
AMD . . . shares drop following a Yahoo Finance interview with CEO Lisa Su, who acknowledges again that the company’s chips were affected by the Spectre security flaw.
Key quote: “To clarify, for Meltdown, AMD is not susceptible. We don’t have a susceptibility to that variant. But with Spectre, AMD is susceptible.”
As Google outlined in a blog post earlier today, the Spectre flaw comes in two variants Google called Variant 1 and Variant 2 while Meltdown was Variant 3. Variant 2 was the hardest problem to resolve.
AMD shares are down 3.6% aftermarket.
Intel . . . shares are down 1.6%.
AMD Stock Price Falls Sharply During January 12, 2018 Intraday Trading
On the news of AMD’s January 11, 2018 post-market announcement that AMD’s chips were, in fact, susceptible to both variants of the Spectre security flaw, AMD’s share price dropped sharply during intraday trading on January 12, 2018.
AMD Stock – Yahoo Finance Reports About AMD & Intel Chip Security Flaws
According to the Yahoo Finance story (“AMD CEO on chip security flaws: ‘We’re absolutely all over this’”) reported by SeekingAlpha:
Indeed, all AMD chips are susceptible to Spectre, however the company clarified in a blog post . . . that its AMD Radeon graphics processors are not. [AMD’s] stock dipped nearly 3.8% on [January 9, 2018] after some users with older AMD chips in their computers complained that a Microsoft (MSFT) Windows software patch caused those users’ computers to freeze up and become unusable. AMD expects Microsoft to resume rolling out software patches for those older AMD processors by next week.
The Yahoo Finance story also stated that “nearly every Intel . . . computer processor made starting in 1995 is vulnerable to both Meltdown and Spectre,” and “Intel’s stock has plunged more than 7% this year since the news first hit, in part because its chips are vulnerable to both security flaws but also due to its relative lack of transparency with the public.” Further, according to Yahoo Finance:
Meltdown and Spectre represent two of the largest, most fundamental flaws in computer processor designs in the past 20 years. In the short-term, computers with Intel chips are more likely to suffer from performance issues, leading to compromised servers for cloud platforms, however, it’s still unclear what the longer-term, more far-flung ramifications are for computer users overall. But for AMD and Intel, moving quickly to address these security flaws is vital not only for its stock but more importantly, in maintaining trust with computer owners around the world concerned for their data security and privacy.
AMD Stock – AMD Stock Price (January 8, 2018 – January 12, 2018)
AMD Stock Shareholders – Securities Investigation
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating whether AMD and certain of its officers or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. If you are an AMD stockholder with questions or concerns, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
