Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Verrica, Apyx, Waste Management, and Tupperware and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, July 04, 2022 (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. VRCA, Apyx Medical Corporation APYX, Waste Management, Inc. WM, and Tupperware Brands Corporation TUP. 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. VRCA

Class Period: May 28, 2021 – May 24, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 5, 2022

In December 2020, Verrica submitted its New Drug Application (“NDA”) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking regulatory approval of VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum.

On September 20, 2021, after the market closed, Verrica announced receipt of a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) due to deficiencies at a facility of Verrica’s contract manufacturer in connection with the Company’s NDA.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $1.00, or 8.3%, to close at $11.03 per share on September 21, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

In November 2021, Verrica resubmitted the NDA for VP-102, claiming “[t]he resubmission addresses the successful resolution of inspection deficiencies” at the manufacturing facility.

Then, on May 24, 2022, after the market closed, Verrica announced receipt of another Complete Response Letter regarding the VP-102 NDA citing “deficiencies identified during a general reinspection of Sterling Pharmaceuticals Services, LLC (Sterling), the contract manufacturing organization (CMO) that manufactures Verrica’s bulk solution drug product.”

On this news, the Company’s shares fell $3.55, or 63.8%, to close at $2.01 per share on May 25, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action 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 there were manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where Verrica’s contract manufacturer produced bulk solution for VP-102; (2) that these deficiencies were not remediated when Verrica resubmitted its NDA for VP-102 for molluscum; (3) that the foregoing presented significant risks to Verrica obtaining regulatory approval of VP-102 for molluscum; 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 Verrica class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/VRCA

Apyx Medical Corporation APYX

Class Period: May 12, 2021 – March 11, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 5, 2022

On March 14, 2022, Apyx disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) would be posting a Medical Device Safety Communication (“MDSC”) related to the Company’s Advanced Energy Products. The Company further disclosed that “[b]ased on our initial interactions with the FDA, we believe the Agency’s MDSC will pertain to the use of our Advanced Energy products outside of their FDA-cleared indication for general use in cutting, coagulation, and ablation of soft tissue during open and laparoscopic surgical procedures.”

On this news, the Company’s stock fell $4.02, or 40.6%, to close at $5.88 per share on March 14, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action 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 a significant number of Apyx’s Advanced Energy products were used for off-label indications; (2) that such off-label uses led to an increase in the number of medical device reports filed by Apyx reporting serious adverse events; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur regulatory scrutiny; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial results would be adversely impacted; 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 Apyx class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/APYX

Waste Management, Inc. WM

Class Period: February 13, 2020 – June 23, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 8, 2022

On April 14, 2019, Waste Management entered into an agreement and plan of merger to acquire Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. for $4.9 billion, or $33.15 per share. The merger was conditioned upon, among other things: (i) the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of Advanced Disposal Services at a special meeting of Advanced Disposal Services shareholders to be held on June 28, 2019 (which was ultimately obtained); and (ii) obtaining antitrust clearance from regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Knowing that the transaction posed significant antitrust concerns, Waste Management agree in the Merger Agreement to divest up to $200 million in revenue-producing assets of the combined companies over a prior 12-month period (the Antitrust Revenue Threshold).

Under the merger agreement, Waste Management maintained full control over the negotiating strategy for obtaining antitrust consent from the DOJ and was not obliged to divest assets that exceeded the Antitrust Revenue Threshold. Rather, Waste Management had a right to terminate the deal for failure to obtain antitrust approval.

On May 14, 2019, Waste Management issued $4 billion worth of senior notes in a public offering to finance Waste Management’s acquisition of Advanced Disposal Services. All series received an investment grade rating. As described in the final prospectus for the Notes, four of the five series, totaling $3 billion in principal, were subject to a special mandatory redemption (SMR) clause in the merger agreement. The SMR clause required Waste Management to repurchase the Notes for 101% of par in the event the Merger was note completed by July 14, 2020, the end date under the Merger Agreement (the End Date).

In the Notes prospectus, Waste Management represented that the Merger would close by the first quarter of 2020. And to address the concerns raised by the DOJ, Waste Management and Advanced Disposal S4ervices engaged in extensive negotiations with several potential divesture buyers, including GFL Environmental, Inc., for the divesture of assets well in excess of the Antitrust Revenue Threshold.

On June 24, 2020, Waste Management announced that it and Advanced Disposal Services had revised the terms of the merger and that Waste Management needed to divest substantially more assets than previously disclosed to receive DOJ approval for the deal. Under the revised merger terms, Waste Management had agree to purchase Advanced Disposal Services for $4.6 billion, or $30.30 per share, thereby reducing Waste Management’s acquisition cost by approximately $300 million to $4.6 billion. In addition, Waste Management and Advanced Disposal Services had agreed to sell $835 million worth of assets in an attempt to satisfy antitrust regulators, which assets were responsible for generating approximately $345 million in 2019 revenue.

Notably, approximately $300 million of the total revenue related to assets and businesses were being sold to GFL Environmental, with whom Waste Management had been in extended negotiations for months prior to the Class Period. Furthermore, Waste Management revealed that the deal was now not expected to close until the end of the third quarter of 2020 six months later than had been represented by defendants at the start of the Class Period and, crucially, after the End Date which triggered the SMR redemption feature of the Notes. As a result of this disclosure, the prices of the Notes fell significantly.

The Waste Management class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the DOJ had indicated to Waste Management that it would require Waste Management to divest significantly more assets than the $200 million Antitrust Revenue Threshold; (ii) as a result, the merger would not be completed by the End Date; and (iii) the Notes would be subject to mandatory redemption at 101% of par.

For more information on the Waste Management class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/WM

Tupperware Brands Corporation TUP

Class Period: November 3, 2021 – May 3, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 15, 2022

On May 4, 2022, Tupperware announced its financial results for the first quarter of 2022. Among other items, Tupperware reported adjusted earnings per share from continuing operations and net sales that fell well short of consensus estimates and withdrew its full year 2022 guidance and named a new Chief Financial Officer. The Company attributed the poor performance to the conflict in Russian and Ukraine. However, when pressed by analysts on a conference call, the Company acknowledged that Russian and Ukraine only accounted for 2% of its revenue.

On this news, Tupperware’s stock price fell $5.76 per share, or 32.16%, to close at $12.15 per share on May 4, 2022.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tupperware was facing significant challenges in maintain its earning and sales performance; (ii) accordingly, Tupperware’s full year 2022 guidance was unrealistic and/or unsustainable; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Tupperware’s financial condition; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Tupperware class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TUP

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com


This post was originally published on this site

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.