Provention Bio, Inc.
Investors that purchased the Company’s securities and have suffered a loss, please fill in transaction information below, or email to info@portnoylaw.com.
There is no cost or obligation associated with submitting your information. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, please submit your contact information and purchase information to participate in the putative class action.
We also encourage you to contact Lesley F. Portnoy of The Portnoy Law Firm, at 310.692.8883, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm’s website at www.portnoylaw.com, or by email at info@portnoylaw.com.
If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
Joining the case through the Portnoy Law website enables investors to learn about their legal claims and take an active role in recovering their losses.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.
CONTACT:
Portnoy Law Firm
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.,
www.portnoylaw.com
Office: 310.692.8883
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
info@portnoylaw.com
In November 2020, Provention completed the rolling submission of a Biologics License Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for teplizumab, for the delay or prevention of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals. On April 8, 2021, Provention published a press release “announc[ing] that the Provention received a notification on April 2, 2021 from the [FDA], stating that, as part of its ongoing review of the Provention for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of clinical, the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments at this time.”
On April 9, 2021, Provention’s stock price fell $1.73 per share, or 17.78%, on this news to close at $8.00 per share.
It is alleged in this complaint that, throughout the Class Period, Provention made materially misleading and/or false statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Provention’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Provention failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the teplizumab BLA was deficient in its submitted form, requiring additional data in order to secure FDA approval; (2) accordingly, the teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support Provention had led its investors to believe it possessed; (3) Provention had thus overstated the teplizumab BLA’s approval prospects, and hence the timeline of the commercialization of teplizumab; and (4) as a result, Provention’s statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and false and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
