WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of OvaScience, Inc. (NASDAQ GM: OVAS)?
- Did you purchase your shares before February 25, 2013, or between February 25, 2013 and September 10, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in OvaScience, 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 District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of OvaScience, Inc. (“OvaScience” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GM: OVAS) between February 25, 2013 and September 10, 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 OvaScience during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold OvaScience, 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 email@example.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/ovascience-inc-ovas.
OvaScience is a life science company developing proprietary products to improve the treatment of female infertility. The Company’s patented technology is based on the discovery of egg precursor cells (EggPCSM), which are found in the ovaries. By applying proprietary technology to identify and purify EggPCs, AUGMENTSM (“Augment”) aims to improve egg quality and increase the success of in vitro fertilization (“IVF”). Augment uses a process of removing mitochondria from a woman’s egg precursor cells and injecting them into one of her egg cells, along with a sperm cell, during IVF.
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 falsely represented to the investing public that it believed that Augment qualified for designation as a 361 HCT/P, which allows human cellular and tissue based products to be tested and marketed without U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) licensure. Under FDA guidelines, organisms can only achieve this designation if they are “only minimally manipulated,” i.e., the process does not alter “the relevant biological characteristics of the cells or tissue.” 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, the FDA rejected OvaScience’s faulty designation. On September 10, 2013, the Company disclosed that it was suspending enrollment of Augment in the U.S. after receiving an “untitled” letter from the FDA “questioning the status of Augment as a 361 HCT/P and advising the Company to file an Investigational New Drug (IND) application.”
On this news, shares in OvaScience dropped more than 23%, closing at $10.95 per share on September 11, 2013, on unusually heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 15, 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.