Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Investors Who Suffered Losses Exceeding $50,000 In AstraZeneca To Contact Him Directly To Discuss Their Options
NEW YORK, NY - (NewMediaWire) - February 28, 2021 - Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against AstraZeneca PLC (“AstraZeneca” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:AZN) and reminds investors of the March 29, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in AstraZeneca stock or options between May 21, 2020 and November 20, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/AZN.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company’s business, operations and financial condition, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (1) that initial clinical trials for AZD1222 had suffered from a critical manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial number of trial participants receiving half the designed dosage; (2) that clinical trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate patient subgroups, each with subtly different treatments, undermining the validity and import of the conclusions that could be drawn from the clinical data across these disparate patient populations; (3) that certain clinical trial participants for AZD1222 had not received a second dose at the designated time points, but rather received the second dose up to several weeks after the dose had been scheduled to be delivered according to the original trial design; (4) that AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number of patients over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite this patient population being particularly vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority target market for the drug; (5) that AstraZeneca’s clinical trials for AZD1222 had been hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in execution, and a failure to properly coordinate and communicate with regulatory authorities and the general public; (6) that, as a result of (1)-(5) above, the clinical trials for AZD1222 had not been conducted in accordance with industry best practices and acceptable standards and the data and conclusions that could be derived from the clinical trials was of limited utility; and (7) that, as a result of (1)-(7) above, AZD1222 was unlikely to be approved for commercial use in the United States in the short term, one of the largest potential markets for the drug.
Specifically, on November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca issued a release announcing the results of an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for AZD1222. The announcement immediately began to raise questions among analysts and industry experts. AstraZeneca disclosed that the interim analysis involved two smaller scale trials in disparate locales (the United Kingdom and Brazil) that, for unexplained reasons, employed two different dosing regimens. One clinical trial provided patients a half dose of AZD1222 followed by a full dose, while the other trial provided two full doses. Counterintuitively, AstraZeneca claimed that the half dosing regimen was substantially more effective at preventing COVID-19 at 90% efficacy than the full dosing regimen, which had achieved just 62% efficacy.
In the days that followed, additional revelations were made regarding problems with AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 clinical trials. For example, the differing dosing regimens were revealed to be due to a manufacturing error rather than trial design. Also, the half-strength dose had not been tested in people over the age of 55 – despite the fact that this population was the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Moreover, certain trial participants received their second dose later than originally planned. U.S. regulators stated that if AstraZeneca could not clearly explain the discrepancies in its trial results, the results would most likely not be sufficient for approval for commercial sale in the United States.
As negative news reports continued to reveal previously undisclosed problems and flaws in AstraZeneca’s clinical trials for AZD1222, the price of AstraZeneca ADSs fell to $52.60 by market close on November 25, 2020, a 4.88% decline over three trading days in response to adverse news on abnormally high volume.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding AstraZeneca’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner.