According to the law firm press release, Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes supportive care products primarily designed to assist patients with pain management attributable to their disease, treatment, or therapy. The Company's principal product and source of revenue is Subsys, a sublingual fentanyl spray designed to treat breakthrough cancer pain ("BTCP") in opioid-tolerant patients.

According to the law firm press release, Esperion is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing and commercializing oral low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ("LDL-cholesterol") lowering therapies for patients with hypercholesterolemia. Esperion's lead product candidate is ETC-1002, a once-daily small molecule designed to lower LDL-cholesterol levels. According to Esperion, ETC-1002 is designed to lower LDL-cholesterol while avoiding the side effects associated with other LDL-cholesterol lowering therapies on the market.

On January 11, 2016, The Bank of New York Mellon was sued for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who from January 1, 1997 through the present (the “Class Period”), were holders of American depositary receipts for which BNYM served as the depositary bank and converted dividends or other cash distributions into USD.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the accident at Samarco of the bursting of the Fundao Dam resulted in the spillage of toxic waste; (2) Vale had a contract with Samarco that allowed Vale to deposit iron ore waste from its treatment plants from Vale's Alegria mine into the Fundao Dam; (3) Vale's programs and procedures to mitigate environmental, health and safety incidents were inadequate; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about Vale's business 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.

On November 20, 2015, Citigroup Inc. (“Citigroup”), Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”), and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“CGMI”) were sued for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who, from or after at least January 1, 2000 to the present (the “Class Period”), are or were holders of depositary receipts for which Citi served as the depositary bank and converted foreign-currency dividends or other distributions into USD (the “Class”).

According to the law firm press release, VimpelCom provides telecommunications services under various brand names in Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Algeria, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The Company offers voice and data services through a range of traditional and broadband mobile and fixed line technologies. The Company offers mobile telecommunications services under contract and prepaid plans for both corporate and consumer segments; value-added and call completion services; national and international roaming services; wireless Internet access; mobile financial services; and mobile bundles. It also provides fixed-line telecommunication services, such as voice, data, and Internet services to corporations, operators, and consumers.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Valeant had deficient internal controls, (2) Valeant had a relationship with a network of specialty pharmacies used to boost Valeant's sales of its high-priced drugs; (3) the use of specialty pharmacies left Valeant vulnerable to increased regulatory risks, (4) Defendants were under government scrutiny for its financial assistance programs for patients, pricing decisions and the distribution of its products, (5) Valeant faced the risk of scrutiny over its price increases, (6) without using specialty pharmacies, Valeant's financial performance would be negatively impacted, (7) without using specialty pharmacies, Valeant's Class Period performance would have been negatively impacted, (8) Valeant's true relationship with Philidor and the extent of that relationship, (9) Valeant controlled Philidor, (10) Valeant's subsidiary KGA had a secured lien interest on Philidor's ownership, (11) Defendants were engaged in a scheme to manipulate Valeant's stock price, and (12) as a result, Valeant's public statements 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, BofI operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank, a provider of consumer and business banking products through the Internet in the United States. BofI Federal Bank's most significant business is making mortgages to high-net worth individuals for the purchase of expensive properties though BofI Federal Bank's Bank of Internet USA ("Bank of Internet") brand.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had deficient internal controls, (2) the lack of internal controls allowed Defendant to exert influence and control over the Company, (3) the Company was engaged in improper and undisclosed material related party transactions, (4) Defendants were engaged in a scheme to manipulate the Company's stock price, and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements 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.

On October 7, 2015, Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. was sued for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all persons or entities who were shareholders of Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. ("Hudson City") and were entitled to vote on the Merger pursuant to the Joint Proxy dated February 22, 2013.

According to the law firm press release, Constant Contact originated as an email marketing platform for small and midsize organizations. The Company has progressed to provide a suite of online marketing tools that are designed for small organizations, including small businesses, associations and non-profits.

According to the law firm press release, LifeLock provides identity theft protection services for consumers and fraud and risk solutions for enterprises. LifeLock's threat detection, proactive identity alerts, and comprehensive remediation services purportedly provide peace of mind for consumers amid the growing threat of identity theft. In 2010 the Company entered into a settlement order with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and purportedly changed its marketing and business practices in connection with this settlement.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges defendants throughout the Class Period issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Silver Wheaton's financial statements contained errors concerning income tax owed from the income generated by its foreign subsidiaries; (2) Silver Wheaton lacked adequate internal controls over its financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Silver Wheaton's financial 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, the lawsuit alleges defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the underlying properties from which the royalty interests were conveyed to SandRidge Mississippian Trust I consisted of far more low-margin natural gas deposits and far fewer high-margin oil deposits, and (2) the reserves of oil in the underlying properties associated with Trust I were vastly overstated. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

According to the law firm press release, Puma is a development stage biopharmaceutical company, focusing on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of products to enhance cancer care. The Company's lead product candidate is an investigational drug known as PB272 ("neratinib"), which the Company had touted as an extended adjuvant treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ("HER2")-positive metastatic breast cancer.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Walgreens' business and prospects, including the purported benefits of Walgreens' strategic partnership with Alliance Boots GmbH. Specifically, defendants publicly announced goals for fiscal year 2016 of $1 billion in combined synergies and $9 to $9.5 billion in adjusted earnings before interest and taxes ("EBIT") for the combined entity, but concealed a $1.8 to $2.3 billion fiscal year 2016 earnings shortfall and the reasons for the shortfall from the investing public. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and/or omissions during the Class Period, the price of Walgreens stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of $76.08 per share.

According to the law firm press release, SQM is engaged in the production and distribution of specialty plant nutrients, iodine and its derivatives, lithium and its derivatives, potassium chloride and potassium sulfate, industrial chemicals, and other commodity fertilizers.

According to the law firm press release, Orexigen is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of pharmaceutical product candidates for the treatment of obesity, including Contrave, which it claims "regulates appetite and energy expenditure through [central nervous system] activity."

According to the law firm press release, this case alleges that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements with respect to the safety and efficacy of the Company's drug Macrilen™. A November 6, 2014, press release by the Company brought these facts to light by announcing that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter refusing to approve the Company's New Drug Application because of "the lack of complete and verifiable source data for determining whether patients were accurately diagnosed with AGHD.

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, including they overstated non-controlling interests in calculating adjusted funds from operations, a key metric that measures the Company's earnings and cash flow.