Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against EDAP TMS S.A.
23 August 2014 - 3:46AM
Business Wire
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of
EDAP TMS S.A. (NASDAQ GM: EDAP)?
- Did you purchase your shares between
February 1, 2013 and July 30, 2014, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your
investment in EDAP TMS S.A.?
- 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 Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) of
EDAP TMS S.A. (“EDAP” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GM: EDAP) between
February 1, 2013 and July 30, 2014, 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 EDAP 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., 2
Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242;
by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/edap-tms-s-a-edap.
EDAP is a holding company and is responsible for providing
common services to its subsidiaries, including preparation and
consolidation of the financial statements for the group, complying
with the requirements of various regulatory agencies and
maintaining the listing of its publicly held securities and, in
conjunction with its Board of Directors, directing the overall
strategy of its group. 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 was overstating the efficacy and
safety of its Ablatherm trials by using faulty statistical methods
and presenting misleading data; (2) the Company was understating
the frequency of adverse events in its trials for Ablatherm
including erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and urethral
and bowel injury; and (3) as a result of the above, the Company’s
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. As a result of defendants’ alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, on July 28, 2014, a U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (“FDA”) staff report was released in
anticipation of a July 30, 2014 meeting of the Gastroenterology and
Urology Devices Panel Advisory Committee (“GUDP”) meeting (the “FDA
Staff Report”). In the FDA Staff Report, the FDA questioned whether
EDAP’s methods for testing the device were adequate. The FDA Staff
Report also noted the high rates of adverse events associated with
Ablatherm, including erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence,
clinically significant rates of stricture, urethral injury and
bowel injury, which the Company had not properly presented in a
clinically meaningful way.
Then, on July 30, 2014, the Company issued a press release and
filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, providing an update on the FDA
Advisory Committee Meeting on Ablatherm. According to the press
release, the GUDP voted 3 yes, 5 no with 1 abstention on the
question of safety, 9 no on the question of efficacy, and 8 no with
1 abstention for the risk/benefit ratio for the use of its
Ablatherm-HIFU device for the treatment of low-risk, localized
prostate cancer.
On this news, shares in EDAP plummeted more than 43%, closing at
$1.92 per share on July 31, 2014, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than October 3, 2014. 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.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.Timothy J. MacFall, EsquirePeter
Allocco888-969-4242516-683-3516Fax:
302-654-7530info@rl-legal.comhttp://www.rigrodskylong.com
EDAP TMS (NASDAQ:EDAP)
Historical Stock Chart
From Jun 2024 to Jul 2024
EDAP TMS (NASDAQ:EDAP)
Historical Stock Chart
From Jul 2023 to Jul 2024