Tyme Technologies, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Tyme failed to design its Phase II Study of its drug candidate SM-88 in a way that could present reliable results on its efficacy for pancreatic cancer. Specifically, the Company failed to include a control group, instead relying on historical control data. Not including a control group in the Phase II trial rendered the study’s results unreliable. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Tyme, investors suffered damages.

-->

Akorn, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Akorn downplayed the severity of violations at its Decatur, Illinois, manufacturing facility, misleading investors. The Company’s response to the FDA’s Form 483, which detailed the agency’s inspection of the facility, was found to be inadequate by the regulator. In fact, the Company repeatedly failed to correct manufacturing problems at this plant. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Akorn, investors suffered damages.

-->

Helius Medical Technologies, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Helius touted positive results from the clinical trial of its Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator (“PoNS”) device for treatment of traumatic brain injury, but the clinical trial actually did not produce statistically significant positive results on the effectiveness of the treatment. The trial data did not support the Company’s application for regulatory clearance, and the FDA subsequently denied the application due to insufficient supporting data. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Helius, investors suffered damages.

-->

Vale S.A.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Vale did not take adequate measures to survey the damage and assess the risk of a potential dam breach at the Company’s Feijão mine. At the same time, the Company failed to maintain proper programs to mitigate health and safety incidents. As a result of these actions, multiple people were killed and hundreds remain missing after the Company’s dam at the Feijão iron ore mine failed. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Vale, investors suffered damages.

-->

Ferroglobe PLC

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Ferroglobe faced an excess supply of its products in the market at the same time as demand for the products was declining. This caused pricing for the Company’s products to be materially impacted. Base on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Ferroglobe, investors suffered damages.

-->

Activision Blizzard, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Activision Blizzard’s termination of its partnership with Bungie Inc., which would give full publishing rights for the Destiny gaming franchise to Bungie, was about to occur. The end of the agreement between the two Companies was likely to have a considerable negative impact on Activision Blizzard’s revenues moving forward. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements throughout the class period were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Activision Blizzard, investors suffered damages.

-->

Micron Technology, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Micron was informed by the Chinese State Administration for Market Regulation that it was investigating producers of dynamic random-access memory (“DRAM”) chips, including Micron, for collusion and other anti-competitive practices. The Chinese investigators have found “massive evidence” of anti-competitive behavior undertaken by Micron. The Company has engaged in a price-fixing scheme with Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Micron, investors suffered damages.

-->

MINDBODY, Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. MINDBODY and other defendants devised a scheme to artificially suppress the value of the Company’s stock in advance of Vista’s merger offer. The Company’s scheme included the negative guidance it issued on November 6, 2018. The merger offer included a “goshop” provision to prevent superior offers from other organizations. Based on Vista’s request, the Company did not release its favorable fourth quarter 2018 results. Based on these facts, the merger price was not fair, and opinions on its fairness were based on incomplete information. When the market learned the truth about MINDBODY, investors suffered damages.

-->

Markel Corporation

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Markel’s subsidiaries failed to record loss reserves as appropriate. This failure would cause the Company to have to restate or adjust its loss reserves. This misleading accounting also opened up the Company to the risk of regulatory scrutiny. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Markel, investors suffered damages.

-->

Wayfair Inc.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Wayfair suffered from diminishing demand for its online products and compensated by increased advertisers to drive sales. The Company was about one-third of the way through the third quarter of 2018 when it announced its second-quarter results, and by that time had already dramatically increased its advertising spending for the quarter. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Wayfair, investors suffered damages.

-->