WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of Unilife Corporation (NASDAQ GM: UNIS)?
- Did you purchase your shares between July 13, 2011 and September 9, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in Unilife Corporation?
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Unilife Corporation (“Unilife” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GM: UNIS) between July 13, 2011 and September 9, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Unilife during the Class Period and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to email@example.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/unilife-corporation-unis.
Unilife is a U.S. based developer; manufacturer and supplier of injectable drug delivery systems. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the Company’s Unifill syringes failed to comply with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) validation process; (2) the Company’s Quality Management System failed to comply with FDA regulations; (3) the Company purposefully increased its purchases of Unifill component parts to make suppliers believe that Unilife was producing at increased volumes despite the fact that there was no customer demand or manufacturing capacity to support such purchases; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, on August 30, 2013, a former Unilife employee filed a complaint against the Company alleging that Unilife terminated his employment for reporting various regulatory violations to the appropriate authorities. Among other things, it was alleged that the Company purposefully ran fake production at its facility in order to lead visiting investors to believe that demand for the Company’s products were high. In addition, it was alleged that the Company purposefully suppressed internal reports demonstrating that the cost of developing the Company’s syringes was higher than the price the Company was able to sell to customers. Further, it alleged that the Company failed to comply with the FDA’s required validation process.
Then, on September 3, 2013, Forbes published an article concluding that the Company’s main manufacturing facility is operating at 3% of capacity, or roughly 2 million syringes per annum. Thus, the “state-of-the-art plant is a desultory affair, with robotic arms and a half-dozen white-gloved workers in blue clean-room suits and safety glasses tossing plungers from a conveyor belt into a bucket; two others sort needles and insert them into syringes. . . . But not worth much if there’s no one to sell it to.”
On this news, shares in Unilife dropped more than 14%, closing at $3.03 per share on September 4, 2013, on heavy trading volume of over 4 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 31, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
- Company Legal & Law Matters