Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Intel Corporation, Velocity Financial, FirstEnergy, and MEI Pharma and Encourages Investors to Contact
NEW YORK, Sept. 16, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC), Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE: VEL), FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE), and MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC)
Class Period: January 24, 2020 to July 23, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed that production of its 7-nanometer chips would be delayed after the Company had “identified a defect mode in [its] 7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell by $9.81, or approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020.
The complaint, filed on July 28, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Intel had identified a defect mode in its 7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation; (2) that, as a result, the Company would experience a six-month delay in its production schedule for 7-nanometer products; (3) that Intel was reasonably likely to rely on third-party foundries for manufacturing its 7-nanometer products; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel was reasonably likely to lose market share to its competitors who are already selling 7-nanometer products; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Intel class action go to: https://bespc.com/INTC-2
Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE: VEL)
Class Period: Common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus, as amended, issued in connection with Velocity’s January 2020 IPO.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
Velocity is a real estate finance company that originates and manages loans issued to borrowers nationwide to finance the purchase of small residential rental and commercial real estate investment properties.
On April 8, 2020, Velocity announced its financial and operational results for the 2019 fourth quarter and full year. The Company stated it had suspended all loan origination operations due to market volatility and that it was experiencing enhanced delinquencies in its loan portfolio and had implemented various strategies to attempt to “address this challenge.” On May 13, 2020, Velocity announced its financial and operational results for the first quarter of 2020 – the same quarter in which the IPO was conducted. The Company stated that its net income had decreased 50% sequentially during the quarter to just $2.6 million.
By May 15, 2020, Velocity stock was trading at just $2.53 per share – more than 80% below the $13.00 price investors paid for the stock in the IPO just four months previously.
The complaint, filed on July 29, 2020, alleges that defendants failed to disclose that, at the time of the IPO, the Company’s non-performing loans had dramatically increased in size from the figures provided in the offering materials, as measured by both the amount of unpaid principal balance and as a percentage of the Company’s overall loan portfolio. In addition, defendants failed to provide any information to investors regarding the potential impact of the novel coronavirus on Velocity’s business and operations, despite the fact that the international spread of the virus had already been confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to disclose the substantial and growing proportion of the Company’s loans that were non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered the statements contained in the Offering Materials regarding the quality of the Company’s loan portfolio and underwriting practices materially misleading.
For more information on the Velocity class action go to: https://bespc.com/VEL
FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE)
Class Period: February 21, 2017 to July 21, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
On July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of Ohio Speaker Larry Householder and four other persons, including a prominent FirstEnergy lobbyist, in connection with a $60 million racketeering and bribery scheme.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell by $7.01, or 17%, to close at $34.25 per share on July 21, 2020.
On July 22, 2020, Cleveland.com published an article entitled “FirstEnergy was relentless in quest to have Ohio legislature bail out the utility’s nuclear plants,” which provided further details regarding FirstEnergy’s illicit activities.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell by $7.16, or 21%, to close at $27.09 per share on July 22, 2020.
The complaint, filed on July 28, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had orchestrated a $60 million campaign to corrupt the political process in order to secure the passage of legislation favoring the Company and its affiliates; (2) that FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had secretly funneled tens of millions of dollars to Ohio politicians to bribe those politicians in order to secure votes in favor of Ohio House Bill 6 (“HB6”), a $1.3 billion ratepayer bailout for FirstEnergy’s unprofitable nuclear facilities; (3) that FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had conducted a massive, misleading advertising campaign in support of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by passing millions of dollars through an intricate web of “dark money” entities and front companies in order to conceal the Company’s involvement; (4) that FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had subverted a citizens’ ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by, among other unscrupulous tactics, hiring more than 15 signature gathering firms (and thus conflicting them out of supporting the initiative) and bribing ballot initiative insiders and signature collectors; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ Class Period statements regarding FirstEnergy’s regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false and misleading; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, FirstEnergy was subject to an extreme, undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and financial harm.
For more information on the FirstEnergy class action go to: https://bespc.com/FE
MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP)
Class Period: August 2, 2017 and July 1, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 9, 2020
MEI Pharma is a late-stage pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development of various therapies for the treatment of cancer. MEI Pharma’s clinical drug candidates include, among others, Pracinostat, an oral histone deacetylase (“HDAC”) inhibitor.
MEI Pharma and Helsinn Healthcare SA, a Swiss pharmaceutical corporation (“Helsinn”), with which MEI Pharma had an exclusive worldwide license, development, manufacturing and commercialization agreement for Pracinostat in acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”), myelodysplastic syndrome, and other potential indications (the “Helsinn License Agreement”), were evaluating Pracinostat in, among other studies, a pivotal Phase 3 global registration clinical trial for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy (the “Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial”). The Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial, which was initiated in June 2017, was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that would enroll worldwide approximately 500 adults with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Pracinostat or placebo with azacitidine as background therapy. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival.
On July 2, 2020, MEI Pharma issued a press release announcing that it was discontinuing the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial. Specifically, the Company advised that an interim futility analysis of the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial, undertaken by the study’s Independent Data Monitoring Committee (“IDMC”), “has demonstrated it was unlikely to meet the primary endpoint of overall survival compared to the control group,” and that “[b]ased on the outcome of the interim analysis, the decision was made to discontinue the recruitment of patients and end the study,” which “was based on a lack of efficacy and not on safety concerns.”
Following the announcement, the Company’s stock price fell $0.78 per share, or 18.27%, to close at $3.49 per share on July 2, 2020.
The complaint, filed on August 10, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) MEI Pharma had overstated Pracinostat’s potential efficacy as an AML treatment for the target population; (ii) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company’s financial condition and prospects for Pracinostat; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the MEI Pharma class action go to: https://bespc.com/MEIP
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.