Emergent investors may receive additional information about the case by clicking the link "Submit Your Information" above. If you are a member of the class described above, you may no later than June 18, 2021 move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.
Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that develops vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases. In response to the novel strain of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causing COVID-19 disease (“COVID-19”) pandemic, Emergent signed a series of deals with Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) and AstraZeneca worth a combined $876 million to provide contract development and manufacturing organization services to produce the companies’ COVID-19 vaccine candidates.
The Class Period begins on April 24, 2020, the day after Emergent announced that it had entered into an agreement with J&J to manufacture J&J’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate at Emergent’s Baltimore facility. Under the deal, Emergent would provide drug substance manufacturing services and reserve large-scale manufacturing capacity for J&J. Then, on June 11, 2020 Emergent announced that it had signed another agreement to provide contract development and manufacturing services and secure large-scale manufacturing capacity to support AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate.
The truth about Emergent began to be revealed on March 31, 2021 after the close of markets, when The New York Times published an article reporting on the accidental contamination of COVID-19 vaccines developed by J&J and AstraZeneca at Emergent’s Baltimore facility. The New York Times article stated that in late February 2021, Emergent employees at the Baltimore facility mixed up ingredients of the two different COVID-19 vaccines, contaminating up to 15 million doses of J&J’s vaccine and forcing regulators to delay authorization of the facility’s production lines. Also, “[f]urther shipments of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine — expected to total 24 million doses in the next month — were supposed to come from the giant plant in Baltimore” but “[t]hose deliveries are now in question while the quality control issues are sorted out.”
The next morning, April 1, 2021, the Associated Press reported, based on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, that the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had “repeatedly . . . cited Emergent for problems such as poorly trained employees, cracked vials and problems managing mold and other contamination around one of its facilities.” Following this news, Emergent’s stock price substantially declined from a close of $92.91 per share on March 31, 2021, to $80.46 per share at the close of trading on April 1, 2021, a drop of $12.45, or over 13%, per share.
Then, on April 19, 2021, Emergent revealed that, “at the request of the FDA, Emergent agreed not to initiate the manufacturing of any new material at its Bayview facility and to quarantine existing material manufactured at the Bayview facility pending completion of the [FDA’s] inspection and remediation of any resulting findings.” Following this news, the price of Emergent’s common stock declined $9.77 per share, or more than 12%, from a close of $77.64 per share on April 16, 2021, to close at $67.87 per share on April 19, 2021.
The Roth Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Emergent’s Baltimore facility had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for massive contaminations; (2) the Baltimore facility had received a series of FDA citations as a result of these contamination risks and quality control issues; (3) Emergent had been forced to discard millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the facility deviated from manufacturing standards; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants’ public statements about Emergent’s ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore facility were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts 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. Filling out the online form above or communicating with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery achieved in this case. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class member.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP has filed a complaint in this matter (see “View Complaint” above to read full complaint). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll-free at (844) 887-9500; or via e-mail at email@example.com. If you would like additional information about the suit, please click on the link "Submit Your Information" above and fill out the form as promptly as possible.