Dec 21, 2017 | Securities Class Action Archive
Novan Stock Drop After Novan Announces Clinical Trials for Acne Treatment Yielded Different Results
On January 27, 2017, Novan announced that its two “replicate” Phase 3 clinical trials for its topical acne treatment had yielded different results. Novan revealed that one trial showed statistical significance for all three co-primary endpoints and the other trial showed statistical significance for only one co-primary endpoint.
Novan Stock Drop
On this news, shares of Novan’s stock dropped from a close of $18.70 per share on January 26, 2017 to a close of $4.86 per share on January 27, 2017, a 74% decline.
“Novan Reports Topline Results from SB204 Phase 3 Pivotal Trials”
On January 27, 2017, Novan’s press release stated that Novan
. . . announced top-line results from the Company’s two, replicate Phase 3 pivotal clinical trials for SB204 in the treatment of acne vulgaris. In the intent-to-treat analysis, Novan’s topical nitric oxide-releasing product candidate SB204 demonstrated statistical significance (p<0.05) compared to vehicle on all three co-primary endpoints in NI-AC302, but demonstrated statistical significance on only one of three co-primary endpoints in NI-AC301. The three co-primary endpoints included the absolute changes in inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts and proportion of patients achieving success on the Investigator Global Assessment, or IGA, at week 12. Success was defined as an improvement of at least two grades in the IGA score from baseline and an IGA score of 0 or 1, or “clear” or “almost clear.” [Emphasis added]
In these two Phase 3 multi-center, randomized, double-blinded, vehicle-controlled, parallel group pivotal clinical trials, NI-AC301 and NI-AC302, a total of 2,639 patients ages 9 and older with moderate to severe acne were enrolled across a total of 110 sites in the United States, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to SB204 Gel 4% topically once-daily or vehicle gel topically once-daily and treated for 12 weeks. No new safety signals were observed and both treatments were generally safe and well tolerated, with less than 2% of patients discontinuing due to treatment-emergent adverse events in each trial. Summary statistics are based on the use of a multiple imputation methodology for missing data.
Novan’s press release also stated:
“While we are pleased with the results of the NI-AC302 trial that met the regulatory requirement for statistically significant efficacy of SB204, we are disappointed with the discordant results of NI-AC301. Our team has not yet received the full data set and we intend to provide an update on the SB204 program after our complete analysis,” said Nathan Stasko, PhD, President and CEO of Novan. “Despite these discordant results, we believe in the potential of nitric oxide’s multiple, well-documented mechanisms of action and the data we have recently generated for our SB206 anti-viral and SB414 anti-inflammatory product candidates. We continue to look forward to near term clinical results from our SB208 anti-fungal program in the second quarter of 2017 and advancing our pipeline of innovative therapies for patients suffering from skin diseases.” [Emphasis added]
[Novan] believes that its cash on hand is sufficient to fund operations at least through the end of 2017, of which the allocation of capital will be dependent upon further assessment of the SB204 Phase 3 trial results and data from other platform programs.
Novan, Inc. – Investors – January 27, 2017 Press Release
Novan Stock Drop & Novan Class Action Complaint Filed
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased Novan, Inc. (NASDAQ:NOVN) securities between September 26, 2016 and August 1, 2017, 2017, inclusive (the “Class Period”) and/or pursuant to its September 26, 2016 Initial Public Offering.
The class action complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Novan had initiated and conducted two identical Phase 3 clinical trials for its lead product candidate SB204; (2) the two SB204 Phase 3 clinical trials were, in fact, not identical; and (3), consequently, Novan’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Novan Shareholders
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Novan securities between September 26, 2016 and August 1, 2017 and/or pursuant to Novan’s September 26, 2016 Initial Public Offering and wish to speak privately with a securities attorney, please complete the form on the right or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected] or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dec 17, 2017 | Securities Class Action Archive
Endo International Class Action Lawsuit
On November 14, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against Endo International and certain of its officers on behalf of a class of Endo International investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Endo International securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Endo International Class Action Lawsuit – The Investor Class
The Endo International class action lawsuit concerns shareholders who purchased Endo International’s securities between September 28, 2015, and February 28, 2017, both dates inclusive.
Endo International – Background & Par Pharmaceutical Holdings Acquisition
“Endo International plc is a highly focused generics and specialty branded pharmaceutical company delivering quality medicines through excellence in development, manufacturing and commercialization.”
Endo International, “[t]rough [its] operating companies – Endo Pharmaceuticals, Par Pharmaceuticals and Paladin Labs – Endo is dedicated to serving patients in need.”
Endo claims to have “a long-standing history of success in developing and delivering quality products to [its] customers,” along with a “broad set of therapeutic areas,” which include, for example, allergy immunotherapy, dermatology, infectious disease, pain, and urology.
In the beginning of the securities law suit class period on September 28, 2015, Endo announced that it had completed its $8.05 billion acquisition of Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. TPG, a global private investment firm.
Endo International’s September 28, 2015 press release stated that as a result of the acquisition,
Endo has further established its position as a leading global specialty pharmaceutical company with a fast growing generics business that is among the top five as measured by U.S. sales according to IMS. The acquisition also helps position Endo for long-term double-digit organic growth, enhanced cash flow generation and increased financial flexibility. Endo’s generics portfolio now includes an extensive range of in market and R&D stage complex and competitively differentiated dosage forms and delivery systems, with a focus on higher barrier-to-entry and first-to-market products. Endo’s combined U.S. Generics segment, which includes Par Pharmaceutical and Qualitest, will be named Par Pharmaceutical, an Endo International Company and will be led by Paul Campanelli, former Chief Executive Officer of Par Pharmaceutical, who will also join Endo’s Executive Leadership Team.
Endo International Class Action Lawsuit Allegations
The class action complaint alleges that throughout the September 28, 2015 to February 28, 2017 class period, the named Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Endo International’s business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants, according to the class action complaint, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the class period that
(i) Par Pharmaceutical had colluded with several of its industry peers to fix generic drug prices; (ii) the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii) the competitive advantages of the Par Pharmaceutical Acquisition, which Endo touted to its shareholders as, inter alia, “a compelling opportunity to drive future double-digit growth, serve our customers and build shareholder value,” were in fact derived in part from Par Pharmaceutical’s illegal conduct and thus unsustainable; (iv) for the same reasons, the “impressive track record of delivering strong operating results” that Endo attributed to former Par Pharmaceutical executive Paul Campanelli in announcing his promotion to Endo’s CEO consisted in part of illegal conduct; (v) for the foregoing reasons, Endo’s revenues during the Class Period were in part the result of illegal conduct and likewise unsustainable; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Endo’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Media Reports: U.S. Prosecutors Consider Criminal Charges Against Par Pharmaceuticals and Others
According to the Endo International class action lawsuit filing, on November 3, 2016, there were media reports that U.S. prosecutors were considering filing criminal charges by the end of 2016 against Par Pharmaceutical and several other pharmaceutical companies for unlawfully colluding to fix generic drug prices. Bloomberg, according to the complaint, reported in an article, “U.S. Charges in Generic-Drug Probe to Be Filed by Year-End,” that
U.S. prosecutors are bearing down on generic pharmaceutical companies in a sweeping criminal investigation into suspected price collusion, a fresh challenge for an industry that’s already reeling from public outrage over the spiraling costs of some medicines .
The antitrust investigation by the Justice Department, begun about two years ago, now spans more than a dozen companies and about two dozen drugs, according to people familiar with the matter. The grand jury probe is examining whether some executives agreed with one another to raise prices, and the first charges could emerge by the end of the year, they said.
Though individual companies have made various disclosures about the inquiry, they have identified only a handful of drugs under scrutiny, including a heart treatment and an antibiotic. Among the drugmakers to have received subpoenas are industry giants Mylan NV and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Other companies include Actavis, which Teva bought from Allergan Plc in August, Lannett Co., Impax Laboratories Inc., Covis Pharma Holdings Sarl, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Mayne Pharma Group Ltd., Endo International Plc’s subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical Holdings and Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
All of the companies have said they are cooperating except Covis, which said last year it was unable to assess the outcome of the investigation.
. . .
Allergan, Impax and Sun declined to comment beyond their filings. Representatives of Endo, Covis, Taro and Lannett didn’t respond to requests for comment. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. [Emphasis added in class action complaint]
The Endo International class action lawsuit complaint stated that on November 3, 2016, as a result of this news, Endo’s share price fell $3.54, or 19.48%, to close at $14.63.
Endo International Files Form 10-K & Another Stock Drop
On March 1, 2017, Endo International filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC, reporting Endo International’s financial and operating results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2016. According to the class action complaint,
[r]eflecting the extent to which Par Pharmaceutical’s unlawful conduct had previously inflated Endo’s revenues, [Endo International] reported a net loss of $3.35 billion, or $15.03 per diluted share, on revenue of $4.01 billion, citing, in part, a 27% increase in cost of revenues and a decrease in gross margins from 36% in 2015 to 34% in 2016.
The Endo International class action lawsuit complaint stated that on March 1, 2017, as a result of this news, Endo’s share price fell $0.83, or 6.08%, to close at $12.82.
Attorneys General From 46 States and D.C. Amend Generic Drug Price-Fixing Antitrust Case
According to the Endo International class action lawsuit complaint:
On October 31, 2017, attorneys general from 46 states and the District of Columbia amended their antitrust case on generic drug price-fixing conspiracy against the $75 billion generic drug industry to add 18 new companies, including Endo’s wholly-owned subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. The states allege these companies violated antitrust laws to artificially inflate the prices of the drugs by agreeing to “collectively raise and/or maintain prices for a particular generic drug,” and agreeing to divvy up the market for the drugs to reduce competition by “refusing to bid for particular customers or by providing a cover bid that they knew would not be successful.” This in effect “avoided price erosion” and “increased pricing for targeted products without triggering a ‘fight to the bottom’ among existing competitors.”
According to the amended complaint, these companies conspired to unreasonably restrain trade, artificially inflate and reduce competition in the generic pharmaceutical industry for the markets of fifteen generic drugs: Acetazolamide, Doxycycline Hyclate Delayed Release, Doxycycline Monohydrate, FosinoprilHydrochlorothiazide, Glipizide-Metformin, Glyburide, Glyburide-Metformin, Leflunomide, Meprobamate, Nimodipine, Nystatin, Paromomycin, Theophylline, Verapamil and Zoledronic Acid. As a result of the conspiracy, “[p]rices for dozens of generic drugs have risen – while some have skyrocketed, without explanation, sparking outrage from politicians, payers, and consumers across the country whose costs have doubled, tripled, or even increased 1,000% or more.”
Endo International Shareholders
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Endo International shares and wish to speak privately with a securities attorney about the Endo International class action lawsuit, 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].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
Dec 15, 2017 | Securities Class Action Archive
Qudian’s IPO & American Depositary Shares – Class Action Lawsuit Filed
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against Qudian and certain Qudian officers, directors, and underwriters, alleging that Qudian and Qudian-related Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The class action against Qudian was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Qudian American Depositary Shares (“ADS”) in Qudian’s October 2017 Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) traceable to an Amended Registration Statement filed with the SEC on Form F-1/A on October 13, 2017 and a Prospectus, dated October 17, 2017, filed with the SEC.
The class action lawsuit against Qudian concerns whether the named Defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements in the Registration Statement connected to the IPO by failing to disclose that Qudian’s loan collection practices were materially deficient and/or nonexistent, since Qudian treated bad loans as welfare; as well as whether Qudian’s data systems and procedures were inadequate to properly safeguard sensitive borrower data against breach, as well as that breaches had occurred.
Qudian’s IPO – $900 Million Gross Proceeds & Qudian American Depositary Shares Price Fall
In Qudian’s IPO, 37.5 million Qudian American Depositary Shares were sold at $24.00 per share for gross proceeds of $900 million, which, according to a Reuters article, “represents the biggest-ever U.S. listing by a Chinese financial technology firm.”
On December 13, 2017, Qudian American Depositary Shares closed at $13.98 per share, or more than 41% below the IPO price of $24 per share.
Bloomberg Reports: “China Regulators, Police Probe Qudian Client Data Leak”
On November 23, 2017, Bloomberg reported:
Chinese regulators and police are investigating a potential leak of data from online lender Qudian Inc., according to people with knowledge of the matter.
Officials are probing allegations that data from more than a million students who are clients of Beijing-based Qudian was leaked and possibly sold online, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing private information. The investigation is ongoing and may not lead to any action against Qudian, the people said.
The probe’s initial findings show that at least part of the leaked data match information clients had provided to Qudian, the people said. Investigators are checking whether the data came from Qudian, if the company was aware of the breach, and whether it took necessary measures to ensure the safety of personal information it collects.
Bloomberg also reported that “Qudian’s shares have slumped 33 percent since its initial public offering in New York in October, as China’s government moved to crack down on the mushrooming industry of online cash microlending” and that Qudian’s “. . . IPO prospectus didn’t mention any leaks of data containing customer information. Violations of protecting personal information carries possible penalties including shutdown of websites or cancellation of business licenses under China’s Cybersecurity Law.” [Emphasis added]
The Qudian Investor Class
The federal securities class action complaint was, subject to certain exclusions, filed on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased Qudian’s American Depositary Shares each representing one “Class A” ordinary share pursuant and/or traceable to Qudian’s allegedly false and misleading Registration Statement, issued in connection with Qudian’s IPO on or about October 18, 2017, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
Qudian Underwriter Defendants, Due Diligence & The Registration Statement
In addition to Qudian and certain Qudian officer and director defendants, the class action complaint named the following IPO-related underwriter defendants:
Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited; UBS Securities LLC; Stifel, Nicolaus and Company, Incorporated; Needham & Company, LLC; and Nomura Securities International, Inc.
According to the class action complaint:
Pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act, the Underwriter Defendants are liable for the false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement. The Underwriter Defendants assisted Qudian and the Individual Defendants in planning the IPO and purportedly conducted an adequate and reasonable due diligence investigation into the business and operations of Qudian. As part of their due diligence investigation, the Underwriter Defendants had continuous access to confidential corporate information concerning Qudian’s business and financing practices, and met with Qudian’s lawyers, management, and top executives. As a result, a reasonable due diligence investigation would have revealed the misleading statements and omissions contained in the Registration Statement . . ..
Qudian’s Registration Statement – Alleged Negligent Preparation & Security of Borrower Data
According to the class action complaint, [t]he Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Further, the complaint alleges that the following statements concerning the security of borrower data “. . . were false and/or misleading when made because they failed to disclose the fact that Qudian’s data systems and procedures were materially inadequate to safeguard sensitive borrower data against breach, and breaches had occurred[]”:
Our business and internal systems rely on software that is highly technical and complex. In addition, our business and internal systems depend on the ability of such software to store, retrieve, process and manage large amounts of data. The software on which we rely has contained, and may now or in the future contain, undetected errors or bugs. Some errors may only be discovered after the code has been released for external or internal use. Errors or other design defects within the software on which we rely may result in a negative experience for users, delay introductions of new features or enhancements, result in errors or compromise our ability to protect user data or our intellectual property, or affect the accuracy of our operating data. Any errors, bugs or defects discovered in the software on which we rely could result in harm to our reputation, loss of users, liability for damages, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
* * *
Misconduct and errors by our employees and parties we collaborate with could harm our business and reputation. We are exposed to many types of operational risks, including the risk of misconduct and errors by our employees and parties that we collaborate with. Our business depends on our employees and/or business partners to interact with users, process large numbers of transactions, deliver merchandise purchased by borrowers, providing user and after-sale product services and support the collection process, all of which involve the use and disclosure of personal information. We could be materially and adversely affected if transactions were redirected, misappropriated or otherwise improperly executed, if personal information was disclosed to unintended recipients or if an operational breakdown or failure in the processing of transactions occurred, whether as a result of human error, purposeful sabotage or fraudulent manipulation of our operations or systems.
* * *
If any of our employees or business partners take, convert or misuse funds, documents or data or fail to follow our rules and procedures when interacting with users, we could be liable for damages and subject to regulatory actions and penalties. We could also be perceived to have facilitated or participated in the illegal misappropriation of funds, documents or data, or the failure to follow our rules and procedures, and therefore be subject to civil or criminal liability. Any of these occurrences could result in our diminished ability to operate our business, potential liability to users, inability to attract users, reputational damage, regulatory intervention and financial harm, which could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Investors of Qudian American Depositary Shares
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Qudian American Depositary Shares (NYSE:QD) pursuant to Qudian’s IPO and would like to speak privately with a securities attorney, 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].
Dec 7, 2017 | Securities Class Action Archive
On December 1, 2017, Aurelius Value published a report (“Eagle Bancorp’s Insider Loan Scheme Exposed”) stating that it Aurelius Value had “. . . uncovered evidence of an insider loan scheme involving [Eagle Bancorp’s] CEO and certain Board Members that [Aurelius Value] believe[s] jeopardizes the safety and soundness of the bank while potentially leading to severe regulatory penalties. In [Aurelius Value’s] opinion, insiders treat Eagle [Bancorp] as their own private piggy bank.”
According to Aurelius Value’s report:
Eagle Bancorp is a Maryland headquartered regional bank earning outsized yields by primarily making commercial real estate and development loans. Many investors appear to believe that Eagle [Bancorp] offers robust growth with minimal risk, a narrative that underpins the stock’s surge to all-time highs and a $2.3 [b]illion market capitalization. But Aurelius Value’s research has uncovered a pattern of conduct that [it] believe[s] is hauntingly similar to the characteristics that have preceded previous bank failures:
- Large Insider loans that finance the CEO’s companies but haven’t been disclosed.
- Fraud accusations that favorable loans are used to enrich the CEO and certain Board Members.
- Undisclosed financial entanglements between largest borrowers and the CEO
- Indications that loans to companies owned by insiders are distressed.
- Compromised and conflicted Board oversight.
- Large recent Insider stock sales.
Eagle’s Chairman and CEO, Ronald D. Paul, has used Eagle [Bancorp] to issue large preferential loans in exchange for being personally awarded cheap equity stakes in Eagle borrowers, according to undisclosed fraud suits filed by the founders of two businesses co-owned by Paul. Documents show that Paul even extracted a $35 million deferred loan origination fee for himself in a transaction that simultaneously included Eagle [Bancorp] modifying the borrower’s loan. An email sent from the private accounts of Paul and Eagle’s General counsel asks for the founder of a different borrower co-owned by Paul to sign retroactive documents that are allegedly used by Paul to cover up his self-dealing from Federal Reserve examiners.
On this news, Eagle Bancorp’s (NASDAQ: EGBN) share price fell $16.20, or 24.49%, to close at $49.95 on December 1, 2017.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
Nov 30, 2017 | Securities Class Action Archive
SCANA (NYSE: SCG) – SEC Investigation
On October 17, 2017, the Charlotte Business Journal reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating SCANA’s “handling of the shuttered V.C. Summer nuclear expansion project.”
According to the story, “SCANA announced . . . it has received a document subpoena from the commission. The announcement contains no detail about what documents are requested beyond saying they are [‘]in connection with an investigation they are conducting relating to the new nuclear project at V. C. Summer Nuclear Station[’].”
SCANA Multibillion Nuclear Project Abandoned & Class-Action Lawsuits
The Charlotte Business Journal further reported that
SCANA subsidiary S.C. Electric & Gas owns 55% of the abandoned project to build two 1,117-megawatt nuclear reactors at the existing V.C. Summer Nuclear Station. State-owned utility Santee Cooper owns the remaining 45%.
The expansion was initially projected to cost about $9 billion to complete. It had already cost that much when SCANA and Santee Cooper abandoned the project in July after designer and principal contractor Westinghouse Electric Co. filed bankruptcy. The companies estimated that the cost to complete the project had risen to more than $18 billion, and some estimates of the final price tag at more than $20 billion.
While there is no direct indication what the SEC is investigating, SCANA . . . faces two class-action lawsuits in federal courts alleging violations of U.S. securities law.
. . .
Shareholders have accused the company and some top executives of making misleading and fraudulent statements to investors and the public about the project. Both suits cite repeated instances of the company issuing financial reports or executives answering questions while intentionally withholding information they had that indicated that the project was in serious trouble.
The suits focus on reassuring comments made to investors after SCANA had received a highly critical February 2016 report from consultant Bechtel Corp. that questioned whether Westinghouse had the necessary knowledge and resources to complete the project.
SCANA – South Carolina Attorney General & Others Request Criminal Investigation
On September 26, 2017, The Charlotte Business Journal reported that
South Carolina has started a criminal investigation into the shuttered V.C. Summer nuclear expansion project, asking the State Law Enforcement Division for agents to probe possible violations of state law.
SCANA Corp. filed notice of the investigation with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Tuesday, saying, “The South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, the Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives, and … (other legislative leaders) have requested the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to conduct a criminal investigation.” The filing goes on to say “SCANA … intend(s) to fully cooperate with any potential government investigation of the project.”
The state probe follows hard on the public acknowledgment of an FBI investigation into possible federal crimes. That probe includes grand jury subpoenas issued to SCANA . . . and Santee Cooper for thousands of documents concerning the abandoned nuclear project.
What SCANA Shareholders Can Do?
If you purchased or otherwise acquired SCANA shares and would like to speak privately with a securities attorney to determine whether you may have legal claims against SCANA or SCANA’s directors and officers, 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].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
Oct 12, 2017 | Securities Class Action Archive
J.Jill, Inc. – Securities Investigation On Behalf of JILL Investors
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential claims on behalf of investors of J.Jill, Inc. (JILL), a specialty retailer of women’s apparel sold under the J.Jill brand in the United States. Our investigation is focused on whether certain of its officers and directors violated state or federal securities laws.
On March 14, 2017, J.Jill completed an initial public offering of common stock with an existing shareholder of J.Jill, Inc. selling 11,666,667 shares of common stock at a share price of $13.00 per share (the “IPO”). The underwriters subsequently elected to exercise their over-allotment option to purchase an additional 865,000 shares of common stock from the selling shareholder at the IPO price of $13.00 per share.
Following the close of trading on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, J.Jill announced that it experienced a lower than expected sales trend across both its retail and direct channels, and that it anticipates same-store sales will fall 3% to 5% in the third quarter, with adjusted EPS coming in between $0.08 and $0.10. Prior guidance for J.Jill called for comparable sales to increase in the high single digits.
See https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1687932/000095014217001839/eh1701043_ex9901.htm
According to Jim Cramer, shares of J.Jill tumbled down more than 50% during trading on Thursday, October 12, 2017, after the company “missed on everything.” Our investigation focuses on whether information disclosed in connection with J.Jill’s IPO was materially misleading, or whether the IPO offering material omitted material information that should otherwise have been disclosed to investors.
J.Jill Inc. Losses?
If you purchased J.Jill Inc. shares and would like to speak privately with a securities attorney to contribute to or learn more about the investigation, 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].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
