Securities Fraud Lawyer
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP Announces It Has Filed a Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Against InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. (NVIV)
The Boston, MA law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP filed a class action suit on July 31, 2014 against InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. (“InVivo”) and its former Chairman and CEO for violations of federal securities laws. The case has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and is entitled Battle Construction Co., Inc.v. InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp., et al., C.A. No. 14-cv-13180.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about the FDA’s approval of a clinical trial and the time for completion of the trial and submission of data to the FDA. The Complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions by Defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material facts to the investing public, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
The class action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased common stock of InVivo from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013.
The factual and legal bases for the Plaintiff’s claims are set forth in greater detail in the Complaint, which is available here or can be obtained, without any obligation, from counsel for the Plaintiff, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP. If you would like more information about this case, please contact the firm at (800) 287-8119 or (617) 439-3939, or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and Liggio Benrubi PA Announce the Filing of a Class Action Lawsuit Against Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (ABPI) and Officers of Accentia and Biovest International, Inc. (OTCQB:BVTI)
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and Liggio Benrubi PA filed a class action on July 26, 2013 against Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Accentia”) and certain officers and directors of Accentia and Biovest International, Inc. (“Biovest”), a majority-owned subsidiary of Accentia, for violations of federal securities laws. The case has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and is entitled Hill v. Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, et al., C.A. No. 13-cv-01945.
The Complaint alleges that the FDA informed Biovest that the results of a Phase III clinical trial for BiovaxID, a potential vaccine for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, did not support an application for approval of BiovaxID. Despite this information, Defendants made numerous statements in press releases and securities filings that gave the misleading impression that the trial results were statistically significant and that Biovest was on track to obtain FDA approval. The Complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions by Defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material facts to the investing public, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
The class action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased common stock of either Accentia or Biovest from July 26, 2008 through August 14, 2012.
The factual and legal bases for the Plaintiffs’ claims are set forth in greater detail in the Complaint. If you would like more information about this case, please call us at (617) 439-3939 or (800) 287-8229 or click here to contact us through our website.
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of CommonWealth REIT ("CWH"), a public real estate investment trust, against its co-founder Barry Portnoy and his son Adam Portnoy, and their wholly-owned entity Reit Management & Research, LLC., which manages CWH. The case is entitled Delaware County Employees Retirement Fund v. Portnoy, et al., C.A. No. 1:13-cv-10405.
In its 65-page Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a long history of management abuse, self-dealing, and waste which resulted in various breaches of fiduciary duties owed by Defendants to CWH.
If you are interested in discussing your rights as a CWH shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, we would welcome the opportunity to speak with you. Please call us at (617) 439-3939 or 1-800-287-8229, or click here to contact us through our website. You may read more about the case in our press release.
Fidelity Management Research Company Excessive Fee Litigation
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represents shareholders in five of Fidelity’s largest mutual funds – Fidelity Magellan Fund, Fidelity Contrafund, Fidelity Growth & Income Portfolio I Fund, Fidelity Blue Chip Growth Fund and Fidelity Low-Priced Stock Fund (the “Funds”) – in a lawsuit against Fidelity, claiming that Fidelity has charged the Funds excessive portfolio advisory fees in violation of under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Fidelity is one of the largest investments advisors in the world and the Funds are five of the largest mutual funds in the country. Fidelity charges fees to each of the Funds to the investment advisory services it provides. Although, in percentage terms, those fees may look modest, in dollar terms, or in comparison to fees charged to comparable institutional portfolios, they are staggering. In the money management business, there are extraordinary “economies of scale” that can be realized as the size of assets under management grows. Because of this, investment advisors such as Fidelity would be expected to offer their services to clients for lower fees as the size of the portfolios managed grows. Although required by law to share these benefits with its mutual fund clients, including the Funds, the shareholders allege that Fidelity has failed to do so. The advisory services that Fidelity provides to the Funds are identical to the advisory services that Fidelity provides to other institutional clients. Unlike the advisory contracts with the Funds, however, the contracts negotiated with other Fidelity institutional clients are the product of arms' length negotiations and result in far lower fees even though those clients' portfolios are far smaller than those of the Funds.
Fidelity’s motion to summary judgment has been taken under advisement by the court.
Auction Rate Securities Litigation
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represents a Massachusetts bank in litigation against Merrill Lynch involving the sale of auction rate securities. In an action originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, but then transferred with other proceedings pursuant to the Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation to the Southern District of New York, the bank claims that Merrill Lynch violated the Securities Act of 1933 by selling the bank unregistered auction rate securities even though the bank was not a “Qualified Institutional Buyer” under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 144A, the rule under which Merrill Lynch purported to sell the securities. The bank also claims that Merrill Lynch violated Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, both by illegally selling unregistered securities to the bank and by making misrepresentations in connection with the sale of such securities, given that Merrill Lynch was making a market in the securities in question and was aware of, but failed to disclose, the impending dissolution of the auction rate securities markets for those and other securities.