Sona Nanotech Inc. Class Action Lawsuit
- Company Name
- Sona Nanotech Inc.
- Stock Symbol
- Class Period
- July 2, 2020 to November 25, 2020
- Motion Deadline
- February 15, 2021
- Central District of California
The Sona Nanotech Inc. class action lawsuit charges Sano Nanotech and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Sano Nanotech securities between July 2, 2020 and November 25, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The Sona Nanotech class action lawsuit was commenced on December 17, 2020 in the Central District of California and is captioned Alperstein v. Sona Nanotech Inc., No. 20-cv-11405.
Sona Nanotech is engaged in researching and developing gold nanorod products for diagnostic testing and medical treatment applications. On July 2, 2020, Sona Nanotech announced positive results for its rapid detection COVID-19 antigen test and its development plan, including that, “[f]ollowing consultation with MRIGlobal and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (‘FDA’)], Sona will enter into independent clinical, in-field evaluation studies to generate the data to support its analytical and clinical data as part of the submission it will make to Health Canada and the FDA for emergency use authorization (‘EUA’) approval.” Sona Nanotech further announced that Sona Nanotech “has been informed that the results of these field studies should be provided by the end of July, at which time it intends to make final submissions to regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions.”
The Sona Nanotech class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) it was unreasonable for Sona Nanotech to represent it could receive results from field studies of its COVID-19 antigen test within a month; (2) Sona Nanotech’s positive statements about its COVID-19 antigen test were unfounded, as the FDA would deprioritize EUA approval of Sona Nanotech’s antigen test finding it did not meet “the public health need” criterion; (3) it was unreasonable for Sona Nanotech to believe that data gathered over such a short period of time would be sufficient for approval of its antigen test by either the FDA or Health Canada; (4) Sona Nanotech would have to withdraw its submission for Interim Order (“IO”) authorization from Health Canada for the marketing of its COVID-19 antigen test, as it lacked sufficient clinical data to support approval; and (5) as a result, defendants’ statements about Sona Nanotech’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On August 6, 2020, Sona Nanotech revealed that its field study results were delayed “due to ethics review board approvals and a need to make study modifications to accommodate regulatory updates, including for study enrolment criteria and assessment at point of care settings, as well as for test handling procedures.” On this news, the price of Sona Nanotech shares fell more than 34%.
Then, on October 29, 2020, Sona Nanotech announced that the FDA had deprioritized its EUA review of Sona Nanotech’s COVID-19 antigen test. On this news, the price of Sona Nanotech shares fell more than 48%.
Finally, on November 25, 2020, Sona Nanotech disclosed that it had withdrawn its application for IO authorization from Health Canada for its COVID-19 antigen test “to obtain more clinical data to augment its submission.” On this news, the price of Sona Nanotech shares fell more than 67%, further damaging investors.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Sona Nanotech securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Sona Nanotech class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Sona Nanotech class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Sona Nanotech class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Sona Nanotech class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Sona Nanotech class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Sona Nanotech class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at email@example.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Sona Nanotech class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than February 15, 2021.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading law firms representing investors in securities class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry.