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.

According to the law firm press release, Alexion, a biopharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes therapeutic products. Among the Company's products is Soliris (eculizumab), a monoclonal antibody for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a genetic blood disorder, and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), a genetic disease.

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) Universal Health admitted patients based on its own financial considerations and not upon the medical necessity of the patient; (2) Universal Health would keep patients admitted until their insurance payments ran out in order to ensure the maximum payment for its services; (3) as a result, Universal Health's revenues from inpatient care relied on unsustainable practices; (4) in turn, Universal Health lacked effective internal control concerning its practices and policies of admitting patients; and (5) as a result, Universal Health's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 7, 2016, Buzzfeed published an investigative story on Universal Health alleging, among other things, that Universal Health put profits ahead of people. On this news, shares of Universal Health fell $15.01 per share, or nearly 12%, from its previous closing price to close at $111.36 per share on December 7, 2016, damaging investors.

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) Dakota Plains failed to disclose that Defendants had actual control of Dakota Plains' business and operations; (2) Dakota Plains and its management colluded with Defendants to misappropriate Dakota Plains' assets for Defendants' personal gains at the expenses of Dakota Plains investors; (3) Dakota Plains lacked effective and adequate internal control; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements about Dakota Plains' business, operations and prospects 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 filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing a large decline in high throughput sequencing instrument sales; (2) that the decline was negatively impacting the Company's revenue; (3) that the Company lacked visibility into trends that could have a substantial impact on the Company's financial results; (4) that, as such, the Company's revenue guidance was unreliable and overstated; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Illumina's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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) New Oriental engaged in college application fraud; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about New Oriental's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On December 2, 2016, Reuters reported that eight former and current New Oriental employees informed Reuters that New Oriental "engaged in college application fraud, including writing application essays and teacher recommendations, and falsifying high school transcripts." On this news, shares of New Oriental fell $6.99 per share or over 14% from its previous closing price to close at $42.00 per share on December 2, 2016, damaging investors.

According to the law firm press release, Zimmer, through various subsidiaries and related entities, designs develops and manufactures medical equipment. The company offers orthopedic and dental reconstructive implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and related surgical products.

According to the law firm press release, the filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's private label business was underperforming; (2) the Company's acquisition strategy was underperforming; (3) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about TreeHouse's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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) TerraVia's products caused gastrointestinal distress, such as nausea and vomiting; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about TerraVia's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On November 7, 2016, Bloomberg reported that TerraVia sent a letter to a distributor in July warning that TerraVia had received reports showing that algal protein can cause gastrointestinal distress. On this news, shares of TerraVia fell $0.15 per share or over 8% to close at $1.70 per share on November 7, 2016, damaging investors.

According to the law firm press release, on March 24, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of Health Net, Inc. ("Health Net") for approximately $6 billion, including the assumption of debt. The acquisition was accounted for as a business combination, which requires that assets acquired and liabilities assumed be recognized at their fair values as of the acquisition date.

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) Impax was engaging and/or had engaged in conduct that would cause the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the Connecticut Attorney General to conduct extensive investigations of possible collusion of generic drug pricing; (2) the DOJ investigation and the underlying conduct was likely to result in criminal charges against Impax, and possibly its officers and directors, for collusion of generic drug pricing; (3) Impax lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result, 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, Allstate is the largest publicly traded personal lines insurance company in the United States. Personal lines insurance includes homeowner, renter, motorcycle and auto insurance.

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) Teva was engaging and/or had engaged in conduct that would result in an antitrust investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General; (2) the DOJ investigation and the underlying conduct could cause U.S. prosecutors to file criminal charges against Teva by the end of 2016 for suspected price collusion; (3) in turn, Teva lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result, Teva's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to the law firm press release, Adeptus Health owns and operates a network of independent freestanding emergency rooms in the United States.

According to the law firm press release, Pilgrim's Pride engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products to retailers, distributors, and foodservice operators in the United States, Mexico, and Puerto Rico.

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) Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc. incorrectly classified EpiPen as a generic under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, which was financially consequential for federal and state governments as it reduced the amount of quarterly rebates Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc. owed for EpiPen; (2) between 2011 through 2015, Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc. paid a lower rebate of 13% when it should have been paying a higher rebate of 23.1% or more; (3) the incorrect classification appears to have cost the federal government more than $100 million in the last five years alone; (4) in turn, Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc. lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (5) as a result, Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc.'s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages when these details entered the market.

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) Cognizant lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; (2) certain improper payments were for permits and building licenses for some of its 12 facilities in India; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Cognizant'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 damage.

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) the FDA previously questioned whether the data from the 611 and 612 Studies were clinically meaningful; (2) the FDA advised defendants in December 2012 not to submit the New Drug Application based on data from the 611 and 612 Studies; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements about Spectrum's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.