NEW YORK, Nov. 11, 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 Credit Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ: CACC), Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN; XON), Royal Caribbean Group (NYSE: RCL), and Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ: MESO). 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
Credit Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ: CACC)
Class Period: November 1, 2019 to August 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020
Credit Acceptance provides financing programs, and related products and services to independent and franchised automobile dealers in the United States. These programs are offered through a nationwide network of automobile dealers who benefit from sales of vehicles to consumers who otherwise could not obtain financing, as 95% of Credit Acceptance’s loans are considered subprime. The Company’s tag line is “We change lives!” and the Company asserts its financing programs give consumers “a second chance” in improving their credit scores.
The ugly truth about the Company’s predatory and illegal business practices was revealed on August 28, 2020 when the Massachusetts Attorney General filed the Mass AG Complaint against Credit Acceptance alleging that Credit Acceptance has, for years, been making unfair and deceptive automobile loans to thousands of Massachusetts consumers. In addition, the lawsuit specifically alleges that Credit Acceptance provided its investors with false and/or misleading information regarding the asset-backed securitizations they offered to investors, and that the Company engaged in unfair debt collection practices as well.
In response to the public disclosure of the Mass AG Complaint, Credit Acceptance’s stock price fell $85.36 per share, or over 18%, to close at $374.07 per share over two trading days ending on September 1, 2020.
The complaint, filed on October 2, 2020, alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company was topping off the pools of loans that they packaged and securitized with higher-risk loans; (ii) that Credit Acceptance was making high interest subprime auto loans to borrowers that the Company knew borrowers would be unable to repay; (iii) that the borrowers were subject to hidden finance charges, resulting in loans exceeding the usury rate ceiling mandated by state law; (iv) that Credit Acceptance took excessive and illegal measures to collect debt from defaulted borrowers; (v) that, as a result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and possible penalties from various regulators or lawsuits; and (vi) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and adherence to appropriate laws and regulations were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Credit Acceptance class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CACC
Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN; XON)
Class Period: May 10, 2017 to September 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 4, 2020
On September 25, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a cease and desist order against Precigen. The cease and desist order involved “inaccurate reports concerning the company’s purported success converting relatively inexpensive natural gas into more expensive industrial chemicals using a proprietary methane bioconversion (‘MBC’) program.” The order noted that the Company was “primarily using significantly more expensive pure methane for the relevant laboratory experiments but was indicating that the results had been achieved using natural gas.” The cease-and-desist order further stated that although the Company “pitched the MBC program privately to numerous potential business partners over the course of 2017 and 2018” and “[a] number of these potential partners performed due diligence on the MBC program including reviewing lab results and plans for commercialization. [The Company] has not yet found a partner for the MBC program.”
The complaint, filed on October 5, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was using pure methane as feedstock for its announced yields for its methanotroph bioconversion platform instead of natural gas; (2) yields from natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower than the aforementioned pure methane yields; (3) due to the substantial price difference between pure methane and natural gas, pure methane was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) the Company’s financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 were false and could not be relied upon; (5) the Company had material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (6) the Company was under investigation by the SEC since October 2018; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Precigen class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/PGEN
Royal Caribbean Group (NYSE: RCL)
Class Period: February 4, 2020 to March 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020
The complaint, filed on October 7, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose material facts about the Company’s decrease in bookings outside China, instead maintaining that it was only experiencing a slowdown in bookings from China. The Action further alleges that defendants failed to disclose material facts about the Company’s inadequate policies and procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on its ships. The truth about the scope of the impact that COVID-19 had on the Company’s overall bookings and the inability of Royal Caribbean to prevent the virus’ spread on its ships was revealed through a series of disclosures.
First, on February 13, 2020, Royal Caribbean issued a press release stating that it had canceled 18 voyages in Southeast Asia due to recent travel restrictions and further warning that recent bookings had been softer for its broader business.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 3 percent.
Second, on February 25, 2020, Royal Caribbean filed its 2019 Form 10-K, indicating that COVID-19 concerns were negatively impacting its overall business.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 14 percent.
Third, on March 10, 2020, Royal Caribbean withdrew its 2020 financial guidance, increased its revolving credit facility by $550 million, and announced that it would take cost-cutting actions due to the proliferation of COVID-19, further revealing that COVID-19 was severely impacting Royal Caribbean’s 2020 customer booking and that its safety measures were inadequate to prevent the spread of the virus on its ships.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 14 percent.
Fourth, on March 11, 2020, Royal Caribbean’s largest competitor, Carnival, announced a 60-day suspension of all operations, prompting concern that Royal Caribbean would follow suit. At the same time, Royal Caribbean also cancelled two cruises, beginning a series of cancellations and suspensions to follow.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell almost 32 percent.
Fifth, on March 14, 2020, Royal Caribbean announced a suspension of all global cruises for 30 days.
On this news, Royal Caribbean stock fell over 7 percent.
Sixth, on March 16, 2020, the Company revealed that global operations could be suspended longer than anticipated, announcing the cancellations of two additional cruises throughout April and into May.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 7 percent.
Finally, on March 18, 2020, analysts downgraded Royal Caribbean’s stock and slashed their price targets.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell more than 19 percent.
For more information on the Royal Caribbean class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RCL
Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ: MESO)
Class Period: April 16, 2019 to October 1, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020
Mesoblast develops allogeneic cellular medicines using its proprietary mesenchymal lineage cell therapy platform. Its lead product candidate, RYONCIL (remestemcel-L), is an investigational therapy comprising mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow. In February 2018, the Company announced that remestemcel-L met its primary endpoint in a Phase 3 trial to treat children with steroid refractory acute graft versus host disease (“aGVHD”).
In early 2020, Mesoblast completed its rolling submission of its Biologics License Application (“BLA”) with the FDA to secure marketing authorization to commercialize remestemcel-L for children with steroid refractory aGVHD.
On August 11, 2020, the FDA released briefing materials for its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (“ODAC”) meeting to be held on August 13, 2020. Therein, the FDA stated that Mesoblast provided post hoc analyses of other studies “to further establish the appropriateness of 45% as the null Day-28 ORR” for its primary endpoint. The briefing materials stated that, due to design differences between these historical studies and Mesoblast’s submitted study, “it is unclear that these study results are relevant to the proposed indication.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $6.09, or approximately 35%, to close at $11.33 per share on August 11, 2020.
On October 1, 2020, Mesoblast disclosed that it had received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the FDA regarding its marketing application for remestemcel-L for treatment of SR-aGVHD in pediatric patients. According to the CRL, the FDA recommended that the Company “conduct at least one additional randomized, controlled study in adults and/or children to provide further evidence of the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for SR-aGVHD.” The CRL also “identified a need for further scientific rationale to demonstrate the relationship of potency measurements to the product’s biologic activity.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $6.56, or 35%, to close at $12.03 per share on October 2, 2020.
The complaint, filed on October 8, 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 comparative analyses between Mesoblast’s Phase 3 trial and three historical studies did not support the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for steroid refractory aGVHD due to design differences between the four studies; (2) that, as a result, the FDA was reasonably likely to require further clinical studies; (3) that, as a result, the commercialization of remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be delayed; and (4) 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 Mesoblast class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/MESO
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.