Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/16/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: September 13, 2019

According to the Complaint, ViewRay designs, manufactures, and markets the MRIdian radiation therapy system, which employs MRI-based technology to provide real-time imaging that differentiates the targeted tumor from the surrounding soft tissue and other critical organs during radiation treatment.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that failed to disclose adverse facts concerning the Company’s business, operations and financial results. Specifically, the Complaint alleges: (a) that demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches first announced in November 2019 that could make purchases of new ViewRay systems less profitable for customers; (b) that the Company’s reported backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported backlog; and (c) that as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about ViewRay’s business metrics and financial prospects during the Class Period were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On December 19, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on February 28, 2020. Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint on September 2.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: VRAY
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: N.D. Ohio
DOCKET #: 19-CV-02115
JUDGE: Hon. James S. Gwin
DATE FILED: 09/13/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/15/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/08/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP (Columbus)
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Ohio
DOCKET #: 19-CV-02115
JUDGE: Hon. James S. Gwin
DATE FILED: 09/02/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/10/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/13/2020
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Scott + Scott LLP (New York - Current)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available