NEW YORK, April 08, 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 RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. (RTIX), AnaptysBio, Inc. (ANAB), Hanmi Financial Corporation (HAFC), and HF Foods Group, Inc. (HFFG). 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.
RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. (RTIX)
Class Period: March 7, 2016 to March 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 22, 2020
On March 16, 2020, RTI announced in a press release that it would file a Form 12b-25 with SEC due to its inability to timely file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company disclosed that the cause of the delay was that its Audit Committee was investigating the Company’s revenue recognition practices.
On this news, RTI’s shares fell $0.40 per share or over 14.55% to close at $2.35 per share on March 17, 2020.
The complaint, filed on March 23, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company inappropriately recognized revenues with respect to certain contractual arrangements, including other equipment manufacturer customers; (2) the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were not effective; (3) as a result, the Company would be forced to delay the filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2019; and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the RTI class action go to: https://bespc.com/RTIX
AnaptysBio, Inc. (ANAB)
Class Period: October 10, 2017 to November 7, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 26, 2020
During the Class Period, the Company’s lead asset was etokimab (formerly ANB020), a drug intended for the treatment of various inflammatory diseases. On October 10, 2017—the first day of the Class Period—the Company reported data from an interim analysis of its Phase 2a clinical trial of etokimab in atopic dermatitis.
The complaint, filed on March 25, 2020, alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the purported efficacy of etokimab, touting data from the Company’s Phase 2a trial in peanut allergies as showing a “remarkable efficacy result” and describing the drug as having a “pretty profound efficacy” in its treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis based on AnaptysBio’s Phase 2a trial data for that indication. In truth, defendants provided misleading clinical trial data which failed to disclose key information and used questionable analysis, making the trial results regarding etokimab’s efficacy and its prospects appear far better than they were. As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, shares of AnaptysBio common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.
The truth emerged through a series of disclosures, beginning on March 26, 2018, when an analyst from RBC Capital Markets issued a report that questioned the veracity of data from AnaptysBio’s interim analysis of its Phase 2a clinical trial for etokimab in adult patients with peanut allergies that the Company had reported earlier that day. In particular, the RBC report revealed that the response rate for etokimab in the full trial population “does not appear to be meaningfully differentiated” relative to a placebo. Less than five months later, in August 2018, the Company abandoned its clinical pursuit of etokimab as a treatment for peanut allergies.
Then, on June 21, 2019, an analyst from Credit Suisse issued a report questioning the reliability of the Company's Phase 2a atopic dermatitis trial data. Specifically, the Credit Suisse report questioned patients’ use of topical corticosteroids to supplement treatment of their symptoms as a rescue therapy during the study and criticized the Company’s failure to provide details on the timing of rescue therapy use or whether the subjects that utilized rescue therapy were classified as responders. As a result of the Company’s misleading atopic dermatitis trial data, Credit Suisse was “now less certain about etokimab’s efficacy profile, particularly in atopic dermatitis.”
On this news, the price of AnaptysBio common stock declined nearly 12%, from a closing price of $67.02 per share on June 20, 2019, to a closing price of $59.24 per share on June 21, 2019.
Then, on November 8, 2019, the Company announced “very disappoint[ing]” data from its ATLAS trial, a Phase 2b multi-dose study which evaluated the efficacy of etokimab in approximately 300 patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Specifically, AnaptysBio disclosed that each of the etokimab dosing arms “failed to meet the primary endpoint of the trial” by not demonstrating statistically greater efficacy relative to a placebo.
On this news, the price of AnaptysBio common stock declined nearly 72%, from a closing price of $36.16 per share on November 7, 2019, to a closing price of $10.18 on November 8, 2019.
For more information on the AnaptysBio class action go to: https://bespc.com/ANAB
Hanmi Financial Corporation (HAFC)
Class Period: August 12, 2019 to January 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 26, 2020
On January 28, 2018, Hanmi announced its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2019. Hanmi reported net income of $3.1 million for the quarter, which included a “$6.9 million specific provision for loan and lease losses related to a previously identified $39.7 million troubled loan relationship.”
On this news, shares of Hanmi fell $1.77 per share or 9.43% to close at $16.99 per share on January 29, 2020.
The complaint, filed on March 26, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the specified $40.7 million troubled loan would necessitate further and future specific provisions for the Company – in the millions; (2) the specified $40.7 million troubled loan would necessitate the Company to appraise and take personal property securing a portion of the amount of the loan; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Hanmi Financial class action go to: https://bespc.com/HAFC-2
HF Foods Group, Inc. (HFFG)
Class Period: August 23, 2018 to March 23, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 28, 2020
On March 23, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report explaining that HF Foods had, among other issues, failed to disclose: (i) transactions with related-parties; (ii) its flagrant misuse of shareholder funds; and (iii) its gaming of the FTSE/Russell Index criteria.
On this news, shares of HF Foods fell $2.52 per share, or over 20%, to close at $9.80 per share on March 23, 2020.
The complaint, filed on March 29, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) HF Foods engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) HF Foods insiders and related parties were enriching themselves by misusing shareholder funds; (3) HF Foods was “gaming” the FTSE/Russell Index by masking the true number of shares free floating; and (4) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the HF Foods class action go to: https://bespc.com/HFFG
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.