Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/10/2014 (Other)

Filing Date: September 16, 2013

According to the law firm press release, OvaScience is a life sciences company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of new treatments for infertility. The Company's patented technology is based on the discovery of egg precursor cells (EggPCSM), which are found in the ovaries. By applying proprietary technology to identify and purify EggPCs, AUGMENTSM aims to improve egg quality and increase the success of in vitro fertilization.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations. Specifically, OvaScience represented to the FDA and investors that it believed that AUGMENT qualified for designation as a 361 HCT/P, which allows human cellular and tissue based products to be tested and marketed without FDA licensure. Yet despite this representation, OvaScience never qualified for this designation.

On September 10, 2013, the Company disclosed that it was suspending enrollment of AUGMENT in the U.S. after receiving an "untitled" letter from the FDA "questioning the status of AUGMENT as a 361 HCT/P and advising the Company to file an Investigational New Drug (IND) application."

On this news, OvaScience shares declined $3.33 per share or more than 23%, to close at $10.95 per share on September 11, 2013.

On December 4, 2013, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel.

On February 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a Notice voluntarily dismissing this action.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector:
Industry:
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: OVAS
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 13-CV-12286
JUDGE: Hon. William G. Young
DATE FILED: 09/16/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/25/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/10/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  2. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    53 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date