Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against View, Sesen Bio, Generac, and Paypal and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
NEW YORK, Oct. 13, 2021 (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 View, Inc. (NASDAQ: VIEW), Sesen Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: SESN), Generac Holdings Inc. (NYSE: GNRC), and Paypal Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: PYPL). 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.
View, Inc. (NASDAQ: VIEW)
Class Period: November 30, 2020 to August 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021
On March 8, 2021, CF II and View combined via a Business Combination with View as the surviving, public entity.
On August 16, 2021, after the market closed, View announced that it “began an independent investigation concerning the adequacy of the company’s previously disclosed warranty accrual.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $1.26, or over 24%, to close at $3.92 per share on August 17, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that View had not properly accrued warranty costs related to its product; (2) that there was a material weakness in View’s internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related to warranty accrual; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s financial results for prior periods were misstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Class Period: December 21, 2020 to August 17, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021
On December 21, 2020, the Company announced that it had submitted its Biologics License Application (“BLA”) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for Vicineum for the treatment of BCG-unresponsive NMIBC.
On August 13, 2021, Sesen Bio announced that the FDA declined to approve its BLA for Vicineum in its current form. The FDA provided certain “recommendations specific to additional clinical/statistical data and analyses in addition to Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) issues pertaining to a recent pre-approval inspection and product quality.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $2.80, or 57%, to close at $2.11 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on August 16, 2021, Sesen Bio further revealed that “it appears that [the Company] will need to do a clinical trial to provide the additional efficacy and safety data necessary for the FDA to assess the benefit-risk profile, which is the basis for approval.” As a result, the Company expected that it could not resubmit its BLA until 2023.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.89, or 42%, to close at $1.22 per share on August 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on August 18, 2021, before the market opened, the health and medicine news site STAT published an article entitled “Sesen Bio trial of cancer drug marked by misconduct and worrisome side effects, documents show." Citing “hundreds of pages of internal documents” and “three people familiar with the matter,” the article detailed that the clinical trial for Vicineum was “marked by thousands of violations of study rules, damning investigator conduct, and worrying signs of toxicity the company did not publicly disclose.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.20, or 13%, to close at $1.31 per share on August 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Sesen Bio’s clinical trial for Vicineum had more than 2,000 violations of trial protocol, including 215 classified as “major”; (2) that three of Sesen Bio’s clinical investigators were found guilty of "serious noncompliance,” including “back-dating data”; (3) that Sesen Bio had submitted the tainted data in connection with the BLA for Vicineum; (4) that Sesen Bio’s clinical trials showed that Vicineum leaked out into the body, leading to side effects including liver failure and liver toxicity, and increasing the risks for fatal, drug-induced liver injury; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s BLA for Vicineum was not likely to be approved; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, there was a reasonable likelihood that Sesen Bio would be required to conduct additional trials to support the efficacy and safety of Vicineum; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On July 29, 2021, Generac issued a recall of certain models of the Company's portable generators, citing reports of seven finger amputations and a finger-crushing incident.
On this news, Generac’s stock price fell $31.04 per share, or 7.2%, over three trading sessions, closing at $400.00 per share on August 2, 2021.
According to the commplaint, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Generac’s portable generators posed an unreasonable risk of injury to users and the public; (2) as a result, at least seven finger amputations and one crushed finger had been reported to the Company; (3) as a result, Generac would face increased regulatory scrutiny; (4) the Company would end sales in its Generac® and DR® 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable generators in the United States and Canada in June 2021; (5) the Company would recall its Generac® and DR® 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable generators in the United States and Canada; (6) the end of sales and the recall would occur before the Company’s noted hurricane and wildfire seasons and following the Texas outage—periods the Company has touted for sales; and (7) as a result, defendants’ public statements and statements to journalists were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
On July 29, 2021, PayPal filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), reporting the Company’s financial and operating results for the second quarter of 2021. In its quarterly report, PayPal disclosed investigations by the SEC and the CFPB. Specifically, PayPal disclosed receipt of a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB related “to the marketing and use of PayPal Credit in connection with certain merchants that provide educational services”; and that the Company has “responded to subpoenas and requests for information received from the [SEC] relating to whether the interchange rates paid to the bank that issues debit cards bearing our licensed brands were consistent with Regulation II of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and to the reporting of marketing fees earned from the Company’s branded card program.”
On this news, PayPal’s stock price fell $18.81 per share, or 6.23%, to close at $283.17 per share on July 29, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PayPal had deficient disclosure controls and procedures; (ii) as a result, PayPal’s business practices with respect to PayPal Credit remained non-compliant with applicable laws and/or regulations; (iii) PayPal’s practices regarding payment of interchange rates related to its debit cards were likewise non-compliant with applicable laws and/or regulations; (iv) accordingly, PayPal’s revenues derived from its PayPal Credit and debit card practices were in part the subject of improper conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) all the foregoing subjected the Company to an increased risk of regulatory investigation and enforcement; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com
