Author Archive: Brian Sanchez

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Insmed Incorporated of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – INSM

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / August 12, 2016 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Insmed Incorporated (“Insmed” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: INSM) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Insmed securities between March 18, 2013 and June 8, 2016 inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Insmed securities during the Class Period, you have until September 13, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Insmed, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of inhaled therapies for patients with serious lung diseases. The Company’s lead product candidate is Arikayce, or liposomal amikacin, for inhalation, a formulation of amikacin. Arikayce is in late-stage clinical development for treatment of nontuberculous mycobacteria (“NTM”) lung disease.

The Complaint 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) the data on which Insmed’s European marketing authorization application (“MAA”) for Arikayce relied was not likely to support approval by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) for the treatment of NTM lung disease; (ii) Arikayce’s approval by the EMA for the treatment of NTM lung disease and subsequent commercialization in Europe were thus less likely and/or imminent than Insmed had led investors to believe; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Insmed’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 8, 2016, after the market closed, Insmed announced that it had withdrawn its MAA from the EMA for Arikayce for the treatment of NTM lung disease. The Company stated that “During the May 2016 Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) meeting, the CHMP indicated that the phase 2 study did not provide a sufficient amount of evidence to support an approval. Insmed intends to resubmit its MAA when clinical data from its ongoing global phase 3 study are available.”

On this news, Insmed’s share price fell $0.99, or 8.24%, to close at $11.02 on June 9, 2016.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – TKAI

NEW YORK, Aug. 12, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Tokai” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: TKAI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-06106, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tokai securities between June 24, 2015 and July 25, 2016 inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tokai securities during the Class Period, you have until September 30, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Tokai is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for prostate cancer and other hormonally-driven diseases. The Company’s lead drug candidate is galeterone, an oral small molecule that was, at all relevant times, in various clinical trials for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

The Complaint 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) there were significant structural problems with the trial design for Tokai’s pivotal Phase 3 galeterone study, ARMOR3-SV; (ii) consequently, ARMOR3-SV was unlikely to succeed in meeting its primary endpoint; (iii) as a result, commercialization of galeterone was less likely and/or imminent than Tokai had led investors to believe; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements, as well as Defendants’ statements about Tokai’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 2, 2015, Richard Pearson published an article on the investment website Seeking Alpha, entitled “What’s Wrong With Tokai Pharmaceuticals?” (the “Pearson Report”). The Pearson Report described structural problems with the design of the Company’s ARMOR3-SV trial.

On this news, Tokai’s share price fell $0.07, or 0.63%, to close at $10.98 on November 2, 2015.

On July 26, 2016, Tokai announced plans “to discontinue the ARMOR3-SV clinical trial, our pivotal Phase 3 study” of galeterone.

On this news, Tokai’s share price plummeted by $4.10, or nearly 79%, to close at $1.10 on July 26, 2016.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert–pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-tokai-pharmaceuticals-inc-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline–tkai-300313061.html

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Juno Therapeutics, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – JUNO

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / August 12, 2016 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (“Juno” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: JUNO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Western District of Washington, and docketed under 16-cv-01083, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Juno securities between June 4, 2016 and July 7, 2016 inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Juno securities during the Class Period, you have until September 12, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Juno is a biopharmaceutical company that is developing cell-based cancer immunotherapies. Its leading product candidate is called JCAR015, which is currently in clinical trials.

The Complaint 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: Defendants made misleading partial disclosures about JCAR015’s safety and made public misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts of the death of patients in its Phase 2 clinical trial.

In May 2016, a patient in the Phase 2 trial of JCAR015-dubbed the “ROCKET” trial by Juno-died of a cerebral edema, a form of neurotoxicity. In late June or early July, two more patients in the ROCKET trial died of cerebral edemas. This caused the FDA to issue a clinical hold and forced Defendants to reveal the truth, which they finally did on July 7, 2016, after the market closed. On this news, the Company’s share price fell $13.01, or 31.87%, to close at $27.81 on July 8, 2016.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in CytRx Corporation of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – CYTR

NEW YORK, Aug. 12, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against CytRx Corporation (“CytRx” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:CYTR) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court Central District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-05666, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CytRx securities between November 18, 2014 and July 11, 2016, inclusive (the “Class Period”).  This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased CytRx securities during the Class Period, you have until September 23, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

CytRx is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. One of the Company’s primary trial drugs is aldoxorubicin.

The Complaint 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: (1) that the clinical hold placed on the Phase 3 trial of aldoxorubicin for soft tissue sarcomas (“STS”) would prevent sufficient follow-up for patients involved in the study; (2) that, as a result, nearly half of all patients would be censored (excluded) from the progression free survival evaluation; (3) that, in response, CytRx would likely conduct a second analysis; (4) that, as such, the results of the trial could be materially affected and/or approval of aldoxorubicin for STS could be delayed; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about CytRx’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On July 11, 2016, CytRx issued a press release announcing the results of the Company’s Phase 3 clinical trial of aldoxorubicin compared to investigator’s choice therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory STS.  Therein, the Company disclosed that “the study did not show a significant difference between aldoxorubicin and investigator’s choice therapy for [progression free survival] . . . .” Moreover, CytRx disclosed that a partial clinical hold in November 2014 led to insufficient follow-up for nearly two-thirds of patients who entered the Phase 3 study after the hold was resolved and enrollment resumed. As a result, nearly half of all patients were censored (excluded) from the progression free survival evaluation. Finally, CytRx announced that it “expects to conduct a second analysis, which will include longer patient follow-up and allow for greater maturation of all endpoints.”

On this news, CytRx’s stock price fell $1.50 per share, or 59.7%, to close at $1.01 per share on July 12, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company’s stock price continued to decline over the next two trading days, falling 10%, to close at $0.90 per share on July 14, 2016.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

/EIN News/ —

CONTACT:
                    Robert S. Willoughby
                    Pomerantz LLP
                    rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


Go to Source

Bring private firms under anti-graft law: Rajya Sabha panel

By: Express News Service | New Delhi |
Updated: August 13, 2016 8:15 am


rajya sabha bills, anti graft law, rajya sabha anti graft law, parliament winter session, rajya sabha anti graft law, rajya sabha news, india news, latest news A scene from Upper House of the Parliament. (Source: PTI/file)

A Parliamentary committee has recommended criminalisation of bribery in the private sector by bringing corporates and their executives under the ambit of a proposed anti-corruption law. It has recommended a maximum jail term of seven years along with a fine, and has also sought punishment for bribe givers. Corruption in private sector is not covered under any existing law in the country.

The Select Committee of Rajya Sabha on Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013, has, however, rejected the government’s proposal to include NGOs in the jurisdiction of the proposed law and has also exempted “charitable services”. The report of the panel that examined 19 Sections proposed to be amended in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was submitted Friday.

The Bill has proposed to increase liability of a commercial organisation to the extent of making the company’s in-charge guilty of corruption if its agent or employee offers undue advantage or bribe to a public servant. “A commercial organisation shall be guilty of an offence and shall be punishable with fine, if any person associated with the commercial organisation gives or promises to give any undue advantage,” the panel suggests.

It said in case the offence is proved in court to have been committed with consent or connivance of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the organisation, such individuals shall be liable for imprisonment for a term of not less than three years and up to seven years and a fine.

Watch Video: What’s making news

Bribe-giving is criminalised as an independent offence in the proposed Section 8 of the amendment Bill. It provides that if anyone offers, promises or gives ‘undue advantage’ to any person to induce the public servant to perform public duty improperly, it would constitute a cognizable offence.

“The committee feels that mere offering of bribe may not be appropriate to be an offence unless it is accepted…. The committee, therefore, suggests that the words ‘offer’ may be deleted from proposed Section 8,” the report states. The panel said whoever abets any offence of corruption — whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment — will be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than three years and up to seven years and with a fine.

While recommending a ‘shield’ for public servants, the panel suggested mandatory conditions for investigating agencies like CBI, such as securing “previous approval” of the competent authority before conducting any inquiry against a public servant, cutting across ranks from peon to Secretary.

Such approval, however, will not be mandatory in cases involving “arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person”. The panel recommended that trial in all corruption cases should be finished in two years. It also recommended provisions for attachment and forfeiture of property and proceeds of corruption.

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha on August 19, 2013 under the UPA government. It was referred to a Standing Committee that submitted its report on February 6, 2014. The Bill could not be passed then. On April 29 last year, the Cabinet gave its approval to amend the Act by pursuing the amendment Bill after moving official amendments.

Go to Source

60 firms warned for violating pollution rules

Representative image. Reuters

By Sidi Mohamed

DOHA: The Industrial Inspection Department at the Ministry of Municipality and Environment warned about 60 companies last year and during the first quarter of this year over violating environment protection specifications.

“We conduct inspection visits at least twice a year to measure carbon emission and require big companies to put emission monitoring devices in place,” Ali Abdullah Al Marri, Director of the department, told The Peninsula yesterday.

The department also issued more than 190 permits to operate in the first quarter of this year and over 600 last year.

The department is intensifying inspection and monitoring of industrial companies which violate Law No. 30 of 2002 related to environment protection, he added.

Al Marri said they check violations related to environment protection and work site environment which include the percentage of pollution, use of sewage water for irrigation, proportion of pollutants, workers’ safety, and the quality of water discharged into the sea.

“In case of small companies, we focus only on the internal working environment such as workers’ safety and special clothes they have to wear because there is no emission.

“In case of big companies and factories, we focus on the measurement of emissions.

“Cases involving some companies have been referred to public prosecution for violating the law regulating environment protection,” he added.

The department inspects factories and companies which use dangerous materials to operate their facilities, Al Marri said.

He also stressed that the ministry does not grant or renew a company’s permit to operate unless it complies with requirements for environment protection.

He said the department coordinates with concerned administrative units to set up plans to curb oil pollution, monitor environmental pollution and take measure against violators.

Its inspectors cover over 700 small industrial firms by making a minimum of two visits a  year, in addition to surprise visits.

Special inspections are deployed in the Industrial Area which has the highest number of activities and workers across the state, Al Marri said. He said the department also endeavours to use the best available electronic technologies to make inspectors’ work easier so that they can forward details to the ministry fast. The ministry has a database which shows the location of each company and is regularly updated.

The Peninsula

Go to Source