U.S. markets closed

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against CytomX, Hamilton Beach Brands, Colony Capital, and Sorrento Therapeutics and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, June 10, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (CTMX), Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (HBB), Colony Capital, Inc. (CLNY), and Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (SRNE). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.

CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (CTMX)

Class Period: May 17, 2018 to May 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020

CytomX operates as an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company in the U.S. The Company develops a novel class of investigational antibody therapeutics based on its Probody technology platform for the treatment of cancer. CytomX’s lead product candidates in the clinical stage include, among others, CX-072 and CX-2009.

CytomX has been evaluating CX-072 in its “PROCLAIM” series clinical program for several years. For example, the PROCLAIM-CX-072-001 clinical trial was designed to assess the tolerability and preliminary antitumor activity of multiple doses of CX-072 as a monotherapy or as a combination therapy with ipilimumab (which Bristol-Myers Squibb Company markets under the brand name Yervoy) or vemurafenib (which Roche markets under the brand name Zelboraf) in patients with advanced, unresectable solid tumors or lymphoma. The Company also began conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial called PROCLAIM-CX-072-002, which was initiated in October 2019, and is an open-label, multi-center clinical trial evaluating CX-072 in combination with ipilimumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

Likewise, CystomX had been evaluating CX-2009 under its own “PROCLAIM” brand clinical program. This program includes the PROCLAIM-CX-2009-001 clinical trial, which is a Phase 1/2 trial evaluating the tolerability and preliminary antitumor activity of CX-2009 as a monotherapy, which CytomX initiated in June 2017. This clinical program also proceeded in multiple parts—Parts A and A2, which are monotherapy dose escalation studies; and Part B, which is a Phase 2 expansion study of CX-2009 monotherapy at 7 mg/kg administered every three weeks in up to 40 patients with hormone receptor (ER, PR) positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, which defendants announced in December 2019 based on the tolerability and activity data from Part A and A2 of the study.

On May 13, 2020, CytomX made available abstracts for the Company’s clinical presentations for CX-072 and CX-2009. Results from the PROCLAIMCX-072 clinical program showed a response rate of 8.8%, compared to a response rate of 18.5% in patients receiving the combination of CX-072 and ipilimumab. Meanwhile, results from the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program showed “evidence” of clinical activity at doses at least 4 mg/kg 3x/week, but also suggested a significantly higher rate of serious or greater treatment related toxicity to the eyes at dose equivalents at least 8 mg/kg 3x/week.

Following the release of the foregoing data, CytomX’s stock price fell $5.21 per share, or 36.08%, to close at $9.23 per share on May 14, 2020.

The complaint, filed on May 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CytomX had downplayed issues with CX-072’s efficacy observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program; (ii) CytomX had similarly downplayed issues with CX-2009’s efficacy and safety observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the CytomX class action go to: https://bespc.com/CTMX

Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (HBB)

Class Period: February 27, 2020 to May 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 21, 2020

On May 11, 2020, Hamilton announced that it could not timely file its 1Q20 10-Q because of “certain accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at its Mexican subsidiary.”  Hamilton further stated that its “Audit Review Committee has commenced an internal investigation” regarding “the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary.”

Following these disclosures, Hamilton’s stock price fell $1.03 per share, or 8.99%, to close at $10.43 per share on May 11, 2020.

The complaint, filed on May 26, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Hamilton’s business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries; (ii) consequently, the Company’s accounting included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results, particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at an increased risk of delaying the filing of its periodic reports with the SEC; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Hamilton Beach Brands class action go to: https://bespc.com/HBB

Colony Capital, Inc. (CLNY)

Class Period: August 9, 2019 to May 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020

Colony is a leading global investment management firm with assets under management of $55 billion.  The Company manages capital on behalf of its stockholders, as well as institutional and retail investors in private funds, and traded and non-traded real estate investment trusts.

On November 8, 2019, Colony announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2019.  Among other results, the Company reported a GAAP net loss of $555 million, or $1.15 per share, which “notably included reductions of goodwill, real estate and provision for loan losses totaling $540.3 million . . . of which $387.0 million was attributable to the reduction of goodwill primarily as a result of the pending sale of the Company’s industrial investment management business and related real estate portfolio, and the decrease in management fees from Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. resulting from impairments related to its portfolio bifurcation.”

On this news, Colony’s stock price fell $0.48 per share, or 8.76%, to close at $5.00 per share on November 8, 2019.

Then, on May 8, 2020, Colony issued a press release announcing its financial and operating results for the first quarter of 2020.  In the press release, Colony reported that its portfolio companies had defaulted on $3.2 billion of debt secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and that Colony had received a notice of acceleration covering $780 million of the defaulted debt. 

On this news, Colony’s stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 3.81%, to close at $2.02 per share on May 8, 2020.

The Complaint, filed on May 26, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Colony’s sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real Estate’s portfolio were foreseeably likely to negatively impact Colony’s financial and operating results; (ii) certain of Colony’s remaining portfolio companies carried unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and were thus at significant risk of default; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Colony Capital class action go to: https://bespc.com/CLNY

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (SRNE)

Class Period: May 15, 2020 to May 22, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020

On May 15, 2020, Sorrento announced that it had discovered an antibody that had “demonstrated 100% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection.”   On that same day, Defendant Henry Ji, founder and Chief Executive Officer of Sorrento referred to Sorrento’s breakthrough as a “cure.”

On this news, Sorrento shares increased $4.14 to close at $6.76 on May 15, 2020. The stock continued to increase after hours and opened at $9.98 on May 18, 2020, trading at a high of $10.00 that same day, which represented an increase of 281.7% from the May 14, 2020 closing price.

On May 20, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report doubting the validity of Sorrento’s claims and calling them “sensational,” “nonsense” and “too good to be true.”

On this news, Sorrento shares closed at $5.70 per share on May 20, 2020, representing a decline of $4.30, or 43.0%, from the Class Period high.

Finally, on May 22, 2020, BioSpace published an article stating that in a May 21, 2020 interview with Defendants Ji and Brunswick, Ji “insist[ed] that they did not say it was a cure.”

On this news, Sorrento shares closed at $5.07 per share on May 22, 2020, representing a decline of $4.93, or 49.4%, from the Class Period high.

The complaint, filed on May 26, 2020, alleges that Sorrento failed to disclose that: (i) the Company’s initial finding of “100% inhibition” in an in vitro virus infection will not necessarily translate to success or safety in vivo, or in person; (ii) the Company’s finding was not a “cure” for COVID-19; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

For more information on the Sorrento class action go to: https://bespc.com/SRNE

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. 

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com