URGN INVESTOR DEADLINE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that UroGen Pharma Ltd. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP UroGen class action lawsuit. Captioned Cockrell v. UroGen Pharma Ltd., 25-cv-06088 (D.N.J.), the UroGen class action lawsuit charges UroGen as well as certain of UroGen's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit, please provide your information here:
CASE ALLEGATIONS: UroGen engages in the development and commercialization of solutions for specialty cancers. According to the complaint, UroGen's lead pipeline product is UGN-102 (mitomycin), an intravesical solution intended to treat low-grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.
The UroGen class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) UroGen's ENVISION clinical study for UGN-102 was not designed to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness of UGN-102 because it lacked a concurrent control arm; (ii) as a result, UroGen would have difficulty demonstrating that the duration of response endpoint was attributable to UGN-102; (iii) UroGen failed to heed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ('FDA') warnings about the study design used to support a new drug application ('NDA') for UGN-102; and (iv) as a result, there was a substantial risk that the NDA for UGN-102 would not be approved.
The UroGen class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 16, 2025, the FDA published a briefing document in advance of its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting regarding UroGen's NDA for UGN-102, which stated that '[g]iven that ENVISION lacked a concurrent control arm, the primary endpoints of complete response (CR) and duration of response (DOR) are difficult to interpret,' and that the FDA had 'recommended a randomized trial design to the Applicant several times during their product's development due to concerns with interpreting efficacy results' but UroGen 'chose not to conduct a randomized trial with a design and endpoints that the FDA considered appropriate.' On this news, the price of UroGen stock fell nearly 26%, according to the complaint.
Then, on May 21, 2025, the UroGen class action lawsuit further alleges that the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted against approving the UGN-102 NDA, finding that the overall benefit-risk of the investigation therapy UGN-102 is not favorable in patients with recurrent low-grade, intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. On this news, the price of UroGen stock fell nearly 45%, according to the complaint.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired UroGen securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the UroGen class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the UroGen class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the UroGen class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Upturn
8 hours ago
- Business Upturn
INVESTOR DEADLINE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (RCAT) Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Investor Class Action Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO, June 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCAT) securities between March 18, 2022 and January 15, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until Tuesday, July 22, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit. Captioned Olsen v. Red Cat Holdings, Inc. , No. 25-cv-05427 (D.N.J.), the Red Cat class action lawsuit charges Red Cat as well as certain of Red Cat's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [email protected]. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Red Cat, together with its subsidiaries, provides products and solutions to drone industry. Red Cat's products include, among others, the 'Teal 2' drone, a small, unmanned aircraft system designed to purportedly 'Dominate the Night' during nighttime military operations. The Red Cat class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Red Cat's Salt Lake City facility's production capacity, and defendants' progress in developing the same, was overstated; and (ii) the overall value of Red Cat's Short Range Reconnaissance Program of Record Tranche 2 contract (the 'SRR Contract') was overstated. The Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that on July 27, 2023, Red Cat revealed that its Salt Lake City facility could only currently produce 100 drones per month, the facility was still being built, refined, and expanded, and that construction of the facility was only 'substantially completed' and potentially could reach a production capacity of 1,000 drones per month over the next 2 to 3 years, but only with additional capital investments and manufacturing efficiencies realized. On this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell nearly 9%, according to the complaint. Then, on September 23, 2024, the Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that Red Cat announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025, reporting losses per share of $0.17, missing consensus estimates by $0.09, and revenue of $2.8 million, missing consensus estimates by $1.07 million. According to the complaint, Red Cat further disclosed that Red Cat had spent 'the past four months . . . retooling [the Salt Lake City facility] and preparing for high volume production,' while admitting that a 'pause in manufacturing of Teal 2 and building Army prototypes impacted Teal 2 sales' because, among other things, Red Cat 'couldn't produce and sell Teal 2 units while retooling [its] factory.' The Red Cat class action lawsuit alleges that on this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell more than 25%. Finally, the Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 16, 2025, Kerrisdale Capital published a report alleging that '[t]he SRR contract that Red Cat won in November and preemptively announced without the Army's permission is much smaller and less favorable than management as intimated,' and that '[i]t's highly implausible that a mass-production facility for manufacturing drones has been built at any point in the last two years for less than $1 million.' On this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell more than 21% over two trading sessions, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Red Cat securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Red Cat class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Red Cat class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Red Cat class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 [email protected]
Business Upturn
13 hours ago
- Business Upturn
OGN FRAUD ALERT: Organon & Co. Investors are Reminded of Ongoing Securities Fraud Class Action — Contact BFA Law by July 22 Legal Deadline (NYSE:OGN)
NEW YORK, June 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Organon & Co. (NYSE: OGN) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Organon you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting Investors have until July 22, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased Organon securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and is captioned: Hauser v. Organon & Co., et al. , No. 25-cv-05322. Why was Organon Sued for Securities Fraud? Organon is a global healthcare company focused on women's health that has historically rewarded its shareholders with a healthy dividend. In October 2024, Organon completed a $1.2 billion acquisition of Dermavant, a biopharmaceutical company focused on dermatological conditions. As alleged, while the acquisition increased Organon's debt, the Company assured investors it would maintain its dividend, which Organon asserted was its '#1 capital allocation priority.' In truth, Organon had shifted its capital allocation priority after the Dermavant acquisition to focus on reducing its debt, ultimately leading the Company to severely cut its dividend. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On May 1, 2025, Organon announced that management reset the Company's dividend payout from $0.28 per share to $0.02 per share. Organon's CEO explained that the Company 'reset our capital allocation priorities to accelerate progress towards deleveraging' and that '[b]y deleveraging more rapidly, we will continue to strengthen the future prospects of the company.' Organon's CFO added, '[t]he biggest issues we face . . . relate to managing our leverage and relate to growth. And we need capital to solve both of those issues, and so returning capital to shareholders is right now, less of a priority.' On this news, the price of Organon stock declined roughly 27%, from $12.93 per share on April 30, 2025, to $9.45 per share on May 1, 2025. Click here if you suffered losses: What Can You Do? If you invested in Organon you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: Or contact:Ross Shikowitz [email protected] 212-789-3619
Business Upturn
13 hours ago
- Business Upturn
IOVA FRAUD ALERT: Iovance Biotherapeutics Investors are Reminded of Ongoing Securities Fraud Class Action — Contact BFA Law by July 14 Legal Deadline (NASDAQ:IOVA)
NEW YORK, June 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IOVA) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Iovance you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting Investors have until July 14, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased Iovance securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Sundaram v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al. , No. 25-cv-04177. Why was Iovance Sued for Securities Fraud? Iovance is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of treatments for melanoma and other solid tumor cancers. The Company commercially launched its key melanoma treatment Amtagvi in February 2024. Iovance administers Amtagvi at the Company's authorized treatment centers ('ATCs'). As alleged, Iovance repeatedly touted its ATCs as a driver of demand for Amtagvi. In truth, Iovance's ATCs were experiencing long timelines to begin treating patients with Amtagvi, and ineffective patient identification and patient selection for treatment was causing high patient drop-offs at the ATCs. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On May 8, 2025, Iovance reported disappointing financial results for 1Q25 and announced it was 'revising full-year 2025 revenue guidance.' The Company blamed 'recent launch dynamics,' including slow 'treatment timelines for new ATCs' and 'the variable pace at which ATCs began treating patients,' which 'differs from center to center.' Iovance also blamed the poor results on high 'patient drop-off' due to inadequate 'patient selection' for treatment. On this news, the price of Iovance stock declined more than 44%, from $3.17 per share on May 8, 2025, to $1.75 per share on May 9, 2025. Click here if you suffered losses: What Can You Do? If you invested in Iovance you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: Or contact:Ross Shikowitz [email protected] 212-789-3619
