Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/13/2015 (Date of stipulation and/or agreement of settlement)

Filing Date: November 22, 2013

According to the law firm press release, PhotoMedex is a skin health company providing integrated disease management and aesthetic solutions to dermatologists, professional aestheticians and consumers.

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: (i) the effectiveness of the Company's key product, the no!no! device, rested on flimsy, weak studies; (ii) a more credible study raised serious doubts as to the effectiveness of the Company's key product, and in fact showed that no!no! works no better than shaving; (iii) the Company materially overstated the prospects for the no!no! device in the Japanese market; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements, assurances and expectations with regard to the Company's growth, operations and business prospects were false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 14.

On September 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

On January 9, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PHMD
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: E.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 13-CV-06808
JUDGE: Hon. Paul S. Diamond
DATE FILED: 11/22/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/07/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/14/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
    995 Old Eagle School Rd., Ste. 311, Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, PA 19087
    (484) 588-5516 (484) 450-2582 ·
  2. Saxena White PA (Boca Raton)
    2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257, Saxena White PA (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.394.3399 561.394.3399 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 13-CV-06808
JUDGE: Hon. Paul S. Diamond
DATE FILED: 04/14/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/06/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
    35 East State Street, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, PA 19063
    877.891.9880 · jshah@classactioncounsel.com
No Document Title Filing Date