According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that defendants caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements and/or fail to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the science behind AUGMENT had not been scientifically validated; (2) the Company was unable to achieve the purported success rates it claimed; (3) the reasons why the Company moved its studies outside of the United States; and (4) that at all relevant times, the Company’s profitability and prospects were false and misleading.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a large customer of BioAmber that was expected to purchase $2.8 million of succinic acid in Q4 2016 experienced a technical problem in its manufacturing facility and postponed the order to 2017; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about BioAmber's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated its revenue by 355% or roughly $3.3 billion by reporting fictitious sales of more than 100,000 homes; (2) between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated the number of units it sold by over 100,000 units or 317% of actual units sold; (3) Homex and certain of its Headquarters Financial Reporting Personnel knowingly and intentionally engaged in a scheme to materially overstate Homex's revenues, homes sold, and other related financial items; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Homex's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Defendant had donated funds through nonprofit organizations to the University of Utah for the purpose of funneling those funds back into NantHealth; (2) that, as such, the Company and Defendant participated in the violation of federal tax laws—exposing the Company to possible civil and criminal liability; (3) that the Company improperly recorded orders received from the University of Utah as GPS Cancer test orders; (4) that, as a result, the Company reported false and inflated GPS Cancer order figures for the third quarter of 2016; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and Defendants' statements about NantHealth's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading.

According to the law firm press release, CB&I provides a range of services to customers in the energy infrastructure market throughout the world. Between 2000 and 2012, CB&I completed a series of acquisitions that expanded the Company's capabilities and services. One acquisition – that of The Shaw Group, Inc. ("Shaw") – was announced in July 2012 and completed in February 2013. Through the acquisition of Shaw, the Company acquired contracts to complete construction of two new nuclear power plants in Waynesboro, Georgia and Jenkinsville, South Carolina (the "Nuclear Projects").

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Graña y Montero was aware that its Brazilian partner Odebrecht S.A. paid bribes to former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo to win construction work on a road traveling from Peru to Brazil; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Graña y Montero's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On February 24, 2017, Reuters published an article highlighting a report that Graña y Montero knew about $20 million in bribes paid to former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo by its partner Odebrecht. On this news, shares of Graña y Montero fell $1.77 per share or over 34% to close $3.32 per share on February 24, 2017.

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sito's growth of bookings would not propel the Company's fourth fiscal quarter 2016 media placement revenues and revenue growth to the level represented during the Class Period; (ii) Sito was aware that the election would impact the Company's fourth fiscal quarter 2016 revenue, (iii) clients' campaign spending and media placement revenues in the fourth quarter 2016 was highly dependent on the elections; (iv) the Company's growth in media placement revenues would not occur in the fourth fiscal quarter 2016; (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements, as well as Defendants' statements about Sito's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

According to the Complaint, this action arises out of a stock and cash transaction by which South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., through its subsidiaries Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Silk Delaware, Inc. ("Merger Sub," collectively with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., "Samsung") will acquire each issued and outstanding share of Harman for $112.00 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction" or "Merger"). Both companies' boards of directors have approved the deal.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Galena's sales of Abstral were based on unsustainable sales and marketing practices; (2) such sales and marketing practices could subject Galena to a criminal investigation; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Galena's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges that, during the Class Period, Under Armour and certain of its officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that Under Armour's revenue and profit margins would not be able to withstand the heavy promotions, high inventory levels and ripple effects of numerous department store closures and the bankruptcy of one of its large retailers. Instead, Under Armour promoted itself as a growth company that would continue to develop and market game-changing products. Defendants' false statements and/or omissions caused Under Armour common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) between September 4, 2009 through at least 2014, FXCM's U.S. subsidiary engaged in false and misleading solicitations of its retail foreign exchange customers by concealing its relationship with its most important market maker and by misrepresenting that its "No Dealing Desk" platform had no conflicts of interest with its customers; (2) FXCM's U.S. subsidiary made false statements to the National Futures Association about its relationship with the market maker; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about FXCM's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

According to the law firm press release, DaVita provides kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure or end-stage renal disease. The Company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers, and provides acute inpatient dialysis services in approximately 900 hospitals and related laboratory services in the United States. DaVita made contributions to a purported charitable foundation called the American Kidney Fund ("AKF"), a group that provides financial assistance toward patients' health insurance premiums.

According to the law firm press release, Regulus is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the discovery and development of drugs that target microRNAs to treat and prevent various diseases, including hepatitis C infections, cardiovascular, fibrosis, oncology, immune-inflammatory, and metabolic diseases. One of its main clinical development products is RG-101, a GalNAc-conjugated anti-miR targeting miR-122 to treat patients with hepatitis C virus infection.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innocoll's New Drug Application ("NDA") submission to the FDA in October 2016 for XARACOLL was incomplete; (2) due to the incomplete NDA submission, XARACOLL would not be approved in 2017 as investors were led to believe; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Innocoll's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

According to the law firm press release, on August 14, 2014, Mallinckrodt acquired Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Questcor”) in a $5.6 billion transaction. As a result of the acquisition, Mallinckrodt added HP Acthar Gel (“Acthar”), an injectable medication made from pigs’ pituitary glands, to its drug portfolio. Acthar is the only approved therapeutic preparation of adrenocorticotropic hormone (“ACTH”) in the U.S., and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) as a treatment for 19 different conditions, including infantile spasms, and difficult-to-treat autoimmune and inflammatory conditions. Given the monopoly status of Acthar in the U.S. market, Questcor, and later Mallinckrodt, repeatedly increased the price of Acthar 85,000% from $40 per vial in 2001 to over $34,000 per vial in 2017.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Qualcomm was engaging and/or had engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain a monopoly for semiconductors used in mobile phones in violation of the FTC Act; (2) in turn, Qualcomm lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

According to the law firm press release, Southern Company is a utility holding company based in Atlanta, Georgia. Southern Company's operating subsidiaries include public utility companies located throughout the Southeastern United States, including Mississippi Power, Georgia Power, Alabama Power, Southern Power and Gulf Power.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fenix had an inadequate inventory valuation methodology; (2) Fenix had an inadequate methodology to calculate goodwill impairment; (3) Fenix was engaging and/or had engaged in conduct that would result in an SEC investigation; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about Fenix's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Novo Nordisk reported materially false and misleading earnings and forecasts in that they were inflated through the collusive price fixing of the Company's insulin drugs. The Complaint also alleges that Novo Nordisk misrepresented and concealed the true extent of the pricing pressures it was experiencing from pharmacy benefit managers.

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Ophthotech made overtly positive representations about the effectiveness and potential of its treatment Fovista when used in combination with Lucentis, a commercially available anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent, despite awareness that the phase 3 clinical trial of Fovista would fail to achieve its primary endpoint of change in best corrected visual acuity from baseline at 12 months over Lucentis alone. The complaint further alleges that these statements caused Ophthotech stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.