Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
Do you, or did you, own shares of EDAP TMS S.A. (NASDAQ GM: EDAP)?
Did you purchase your shares between February 1, 2013 and July 30,
Did you lose money in your investment in EDAP TMS S.A.?
Do you want to discuss your rights?
& Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased American
Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) of EDAP TMS S.A. (“EDAP” or the “Company”)
(NASDAQ GM: EDAP)
between February 1, 2013 and July 30, 2014, inclusive (the “Class
Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of EDAP during the Class Period, and wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact Timothy
J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2
Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by
e-mail to email@example.com; or
EDAP is a holding company and is responsible for providing common
services to its subsidiaries, including preparation and consolidation of
the financial statements for the group, complying with the requirements
of various regulatory agencies and maintaining the listing of its
publicly held securities and, in conjunction with its Board of
Directors, directing the overall strategy of its group. The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially
false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts,
about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing
public that: (1) the Company was overstating the efficacy and safety of
its Ablatherm trials by using faulty statistical methods and presenting
misleading data; (2) the Company was understating the frequency of
adverse events in its trials for Ablatherm including erectile
dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and urethral and bowel injury; and
(3) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of
defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, on July 28, 2014, a U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (“FDA”) staff report was released in anticipation of a
July 30, 2014 meeting of the Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel
Advisory Committee (“GUDP”) meeting (the “FDA Staff Report”). In the FDA
Staff Report, the FDA questioned whether EDAP’s methods for testing the
device were adequate. The FDA Staff Report also noted the high rates of
adverse events associated with Ablatherm, including erectile dysfunction
and urinary incontinence, clinically significant rates of stricture,
urethral injury and bowel injury, which the Company had not properly
presented in a clinically meaningful way.
Then, on July 30, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed a
Form 6-K with the SEC, providing an update on the FDA Advisory Committee
Meeting on Ablatherm. According to the press release, the GUDP voted 3
yes, 5 no with 1 abstention on the question of safety, 9 no on the
question of efficacy, and 8 no with 1 abstention for the risk/benefit
ratio for the use of its Ablatherm-HIFU device for the treatment of
low-risk, localized prostate cancer.
On this news, shares in EDAP plummeted more than 43%, closing at $1.92
per share on July 31, 2014, on unusually heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than October 3, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting 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. Any member of the
proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.
& Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the
firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly
litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder
rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware
Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Copyright Business Wire 2014