According to the law firm press release, Provectus, formerly Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a development-stage pharmaceutical company that is engaged in developing pharmaceuticals for oncology and dermatology indications, including PV-10, which is intended for the treatment of several life threatening cancers, including metastatic melanoma, liver cancer, and breast cancer.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements to the investing public regarding the prospects for PV-10. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Provectus stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $5.22 per share on January 22, 2014.
On January 23, 2014, an article was published on TheStreet.com alleging that Provectus management had misled investors about the prospects for PV-10, questioning why Provectus had not yet started its promised Phase 3 randomized controlled trial of PV-10 and speculating that PV-10 may be obsolete in light of new skin cancer drugs being developed. On this news, Provectus’s stock price fell $3.35 per share to close at $1.87 per share on January 23, 2014, a decline of nearly 64% on volume of 30.5 million shares. On May 21, 2014, an investment community blog on SeekingAlpha.com highlighted the failure of Provectus to commence a Phase 3 trial of PV-10 and alleged that the Company was tied to a stock promotion firm whose other stock recommendations had recently had trading in their stock halted by the SEC. On the same day, Provectus issued a press release refuting inaccuracies in the blog on SeekingAlpha.com. On this news, Provectus’s stock price dropped $0.22 per share to close at $2.02 per share on May 22, 2014, a one-day decline of nearly 10%, and on May 23, 2014, trading in Provectus stock was halted at $2.02 per share.
On July 16, 2014, the Court issued an Order transferring this case to the Eastern District of Tennessee.
On November 26, 2014, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 6, 2015.
On March 8, 2016, the parties agreed on a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved on April 7. The Settlement was granted final approval and this case was dismissed on December 12, 2016.
On November 20, 2017, the Court issued an Order authorizing final distribution of the Settlement Fund.