BlackRock-Backed Global Ports Deal Faces Uncertainty Amid Cosco Demands 
TSMC Honors Japanese Chip Equipment Makers With 2025 Supplier Awards 
ByteDance Plans Massive AI Investment in 2026 to Close Gap With U.S. Tech Giants 
GLP-1 Weight Loss Pills Set to Reshape Food and Fast-Food Industry in 2025 
Hanwha Signals Readiness to Build Nuclear-Powered Submarines at Philly Shipyard for U.S. Navy 
Texas App Store Age Verification Law Blocked by Federal Judge in First Amendment Ruling 
Warner Bros. Discovery Shares Slide Amid Report of Potential Paramount Skydance Lawsuit 
Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk Battle for India’s Fast-Growing Obesity Drug Market 
California Regulator Probes Waymo Robotaxi Stalls During San Francisco Power Outage 
Mexico Antitrust Review of Viva Aerobus–Volaris Deal Signals Growth for Airline Sector 
Boeing Wins $2.04B U.S. Air Force Contract for B-52 Engine Replacement Program 
Nvidia to Acquire Groq in $20 Billion Deal to Boost AI Chip Dominance 
BP Nears $10 Billion Castrol Stake Sale to Stonepeak 
Novo Nordisk Stock Surges After FDA Approves Wegovy Pill for Weight Loss 
Sanofi to Acquire Dynavax in $2.2 Billion Deal to Strengthen Vaccines Portfolio 
Warner Bros Discovery Weighs Amended Paramount Skydance Bid as Netflix Takeover Battle Intensifies 
 - EconoTimes)
NEW YORK, Feb. 12, 2016 -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against OvaScience, Inc. (“OvaScience” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq:OVAS) in the Suffolk County Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Complaint alleges that officers and directors of OvaScience violated the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company’s January 8, 2015 Secondary Offering (the “Offering”) when they sold 2.3 million shares of common stock at an offering price of $50.00 per share
The Complaint alleges that the documents filed in connection with the Offering contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions, including that the approximately 150 patients that had received OvaScience’s AUGMENT procedure in 2014 did not achieve a pregnancy success rate that was significantly higher than the rate achieved without its AUGMENT procedure. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
The truth began to emerge on March 26 and 28, 2015, when the company reported results of IVF clinics utilizing the AUGMENT procedure, disclosing a 53% and a 25% success rate, respectively. These success rates were comparable to the success rate achieved for a woman using IVF without AUGMENT. On March 30, 3015, a Wainwright & Co. analyst questioned the Company’s AUGMENT data pregnancy rate calculation, stating that an alternative representation of the data would result in a 35% success rate rather than the 53% success rate declared by OvaScience. Then, on April 6, 2015, the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation published an article that challenged the reported 53% clinical pregnancy rate. The article suggested that the AUGMENT procedure data did not achieve a significant success rate of clinical pregnancies compared to previous rates achieved without the Company’s AUGMENT procedure. On September 28, 2015, OvaScience issued a press release announcing that it does not expect to meet the 2015 goal of 1,000 AUGMENT treatment cycles. On this news, the Company stock fell by $5.95 per share, or over 40%, to close at $8.57 per share on September 29, 2015. The stock has plummeted by over 77% since its Offering.
If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at [email protected] or [email protected].
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.com for more information about the firm.
