Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/07/2014 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: November 01, 2013

According to the law firm press release, Unilife designs and manufactures medical devices. The Company produces retractable syringes.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Unifill syringes failed to comply with the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") validation processes (2) the Company's Quality Management System failed to comply with FDA regulations; (3) the Company purposefully increased its purchases of Unifill component parts to make suppliers believe that Unilife was producing at increased volumes despite the fact that there was no customer demand or manufacturing capacity to support such purchases; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 30, 2013, a former Unilife employee filed a complaint against the Company alleging that Unilife terminated his employment for reporting various regulatory violations to the appropriate authorities. For example, the employee alleges that the Company purposefully ran fake production at the Company's facility in order to lead visiting investors to believe that demand for the Company's products were high. Moreover, according to the employee, the Company purposefully suppressed internal reports demonstrating that the cost of developing the Company's syringes were higher than the price the Company was able to sell to customers.

On September 3, 2013, Forbes published an article concluding that the Company's main manufacturing facility was operating at 3% of capacity, or roughly 2 million syringes per annum. On this news, Unilife securities declined $0.52 per share or more than 14%, to close at $3.03 per share on September 4, 2013.

On January 7, 2014, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action, Brandt v. Unilife Corporation, et al., 13-CV-02690-JEJ, brought before the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania, without prejudice, as to all defendants.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: UNIS
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: M.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 13-CV-02690
JUDGE: Hon. John E. Jones, III
DATE FILED: 11/01/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/13/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/09/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP
    200 Locust Street, Suite 400 , Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, PA 17101
    717.234.9730 (717) 234-9734 ·
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date