WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of MiMedx Group, Inc. (NASDAQ CM: MDXG)?
- Did you purchase your shares before March 7, 2013, or between March 7, 2013 and September 4, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in MiMedx Group, Inc.?
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of MiMedx Group, Inc. (“MiMedx” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ CM: MDXG) between March 7, 2013 and September 4, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of MiMedx during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold MiMedx, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/mimedx-group-inc-mdxg.
MiMedx is an integrated developer, manufacturer and marketer of patent protected regenerative biomaterial products and allografts processed from human amniotic membrane. 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: (a) MiMedx did not possess the necessary licensing to make certain of its products; (b) the Company was manufacturing certain of its products unlawfully and in violation of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) rules and regulations; (c) at all relevant times, MiMedx’s revenues from these products were substantially and materially threatened due to the Company’s lack of licensure; (d) because a portion of its revenues were subject to termination, MiMedx’s revenue guidance issued during the Class Period lacked a reasonable basis when made; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and expected earnings were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made. 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 September 4, 2013, the FDA posted an “Untitled Letter,” dated August 28, 2013, on its website describing regulatory violations committed by the Company. The letter concerned MiMedx’s amniotic/chorionic-based products, including AmnioFix Injectable, AccelShield Injectable, and EpiFix Injectable, all of which are intended for use in reducing inflammation and scar tissue formation, as well as for enhancing soft tissue wound healing. Among other things, the Untitled Letter stated that because these products were micronized, they were drugs. And since MiMedx did not possess a valid biologics license, the Untitled Letter concluded that the Company was unable to lawfully market its products.
On this news, shares in MiMedx dropped more than 36%, closing at $3.85 per share on September 4, 2013, on unusually heavy trading volume of over 4.8 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 8, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.