November 5, 2013 - Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Unilife between July 13, 2011 and September 9, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period").
"Unilife is a U.S. based developer; manufacturer and supplier of injectable drug delivery systems. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the Company's Unifill syringes failed to comply with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") validation process; (2) the Company's Quality Management System failed to comply with FDA regulations; (3) the Company purposefully increased its purchases of Unifill component parts to make suppliers believe that Unilife was producing at increased volumes despite the fact that there was no customer demand or manufacturing capacity to support such purchases; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, on August 30, 2013, a former Unilife employee filed a complaint against the Company alleging that Unilife terminated his employment for reporting various regulatory violations to the appropriate authorities. Among other things, it was alleged that the Company purposefully ran fake production at its facility in order to lead visiting investors to believe that demand for the Company's products were high. In addition, it was alleged that the Company purposefully suppressed internal reports demonstrating that the cost of developing the Company's syringes was higher than the price the Company was able to sell to customers. Further, it alleged that the Company failed to comply with the FDA's required validation process.
Then, on September 3, 2013, Forbes published an article concluding that the Company's main manufacturing facility is operating at 3% of capacity, or roughly 2 million syringes per annum. Thus, the "state-of-the-art plant is a desultory affair, with robotic arms and a half-dozen white-gloved workers in blue clean-room suits and safety glasses tossing plungers from a conveyor belt into a bucket; two others sort needles and insert them into syringes. . . . But not worth much if there's no one to sell it to."
On this news, shares in Unilife dropped more than 14%, closing at $3.03 per share on September 4, 2013, on heavy trading volume of over 4 million shares.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 31, 2013, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
For more information about the case or to participate online, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/unis or contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at [email protected]. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com."
