Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Deutsche Bank, Insperity, and Energy Recovery and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
September 02, 2020 at 14:00 PM EDT
NEW YORK, Sept. 02, 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 Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA), Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB), Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP), and Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERII). 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.
Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA)
Class Period: September 16, 2019 to June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020
Verrica is a dermatology therapeutics company that develops treatments for people living with skin diseases. Its lead product candidate, VP-102, is a drug-device combination of a topical solution of cantharidin administered through the Company’s single-use precision applicator. The Company is initially developing VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum, or molluscum, a highly contagious and primarily pediatric viral skin disease, and common warts.
On June 29, 2020, Verrica disclosed receipt of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding the Company’s New Drug Application (“NDA”) for VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. The letter identified certain deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements. Moreover, according to the Company, the FDA’s information requests have included a “specific request related to a potential safety issue with the applicator that could arise if the instructions for use were not properly followed.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.06, or nearly 22%, to close at $11.01 per share on June 30, 2020.
The complaint, filed on July 14, 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 the Company’s proprietary applicator used for VP-102 posed certain safety risks if the instructions were not properly followed; (2) that, as a result, Verrica would incorporate certain user features to mitigate the safety risk; (3) that the addition of the user feature would require additional testing for stability supportive data; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, regulatory approval for VP-102 was reasonably likely to be delayed; 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 Verrica class action go to: https://bespc.com/VRCA
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB)
Class Period: November 7, 2017 to July 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020
On May 13, 2020, media outlets reported that the U.S. Federal Reserve had sharply criticized Deutsche Bank’s U.S. operations in an internal audit. The audit reportedly found that Deutsche Bank had failed to address multiple concerns identified years earlier, including concerns related to the bank’s anti-money laundering (“AML”) and other control procedures.
On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank’s ordinary shares fell $0.31 per share, or 4.49%, to close at $6.60 per share on May 13, 2020.
Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserve’s criticism of Deutsche Bank’s failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the bank $150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable transactions from accounts associated with sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein and with two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, both of which were the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct.
On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank’s ordinary shares fell $0.13 per share, or 1.31%, to close at $9.82 per share on July 7, 2020
The complaint, filed on July 15, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the bank’s business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies related to AML, its disclosure controls, and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, and its U.S. operations’ troubled condition; (ii) as a result, the bank failed to properly monitor customers that the bank itself deemed to be high risk; (iii) the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the bank’s financial results and reputation; and (iv) as a result, the bank’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Deutsche Bank class action go to: https://bespc.com/DB
Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP)
Class Period: February 11, 2019 to February 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020
On July 29, 2019, Insperity released its second quarter 2019 financial results. Despite delivering year-over-year growth and meeting analysts’ estimates, the Company offered disappointing third quarter 2019 guidance and reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Further, defendants revealed that in the second quarter 2019, Insperity had experienced an increase in large medical claim costs, which defendants described as an anomaly which would not impact projected cost benefit trends.
On this news, Insperity shares fell $35.74 per share, or 25 percent.
On November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter 2019 financial results, which substantially missed analysts’ estimates and were materially down year-over-year. In addition, Insperity materially reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Defendants attributed these results to continued large medical claim costs, which they again attempted to describe as a mere anomaly to assuage investor concern.
On this news, Insperity shares fell by $36.29 per share, or 34 percent.
Finally, on February 11, 2020, after the close of trading, Insperity released its fourth quarter and full-year 2019 financial results. On this date, Insperity revealed that, for the third quarter in a row, large medical claims had again impacted the Company. Further, the Company stated that it had restructured its contract with UnitedHealthcare to no longer have financial responsibility for any medical claims over $1 million. Insperity also offered disappointingly bearish guidance for the first quarter and full-year 2020.
On this news, Insperity shares declined by $17.44 per share, or 20 percent.
The complaint, filed on July 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company’s business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (i) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (ii) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity’s financial results.
For more information on the Insperity securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/NSP
Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERII)
Class Period: August 2, 2017 to June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020
On October 19, 2015, the Company announced that it has signed a fifteen-year deal with Schlumberger Technology Corp. (“Schlumberger”), which gave Schlumberger the exclusive right to the use of the Company’s VorTeq technology (the “Schlumberger Licensing Agreement”). Under the terms of the Schlumberger Licensing Agreement, Schlumberger paid $75 million exclusivity fee and was to pay an additional $50 million milestone payments in 2016. The terms also dictated that Schlumberger would pay continuing annual royalties for the duration of the license agreement, subject to the satisfaction of certain key performance indicators.
On June 29, 2020 — not even five years into the Schlumberger License Agreement — the Company issued a press release, announcing the termination of the licensing agreement with Schlumberger, citing to “different strategic perspectives as to the path to VorTeq commercialization.” The Company further announced that following the termination, “no further payments will be made by either party” and that “Energy Recovery will now be fully responsible for commercialization of the VorTeq technology globally.”
This news caused a sharp decline in the price of Energy Recovery shares, which fell 15.8%, to close at $7.59 on June 30, 2020. Several securities analysts downgraded Energy Recovery’s rating and significantly lowered the Company’s price target. As one analyst commented, “[the Company] should have been able to perceive in advance and then explicitly warn about the significant, and likely rising, odds of this outcome.”
The complaint, filed on July 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and financial health. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the Company and Schlumberger had different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq; (ii) which created substantial risk of early termination of the Company’s exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.
For more information on the Energy Recovery class action go to: https://bespc.com/ERII
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: