Rain Oncology
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
On May 22, 2023, Rain announced the Phase 3 trial results of its antitumor drug, milademetan, which indicated that the trial did not achieve its primary endpoint of progression-free survival. The results were also found to be significantly different from previous clinical results. In response to these outcomes, the company stated that it would re-evaluate the future path for milademetan.
As a consequence of this news, Rain’s stock price experienced a drastic decline of $8.71 per share, equivalent to an 87.7% decrease. The shares closed at $1.22 per share on May 22, 2023, causing financial harm to investors.
The class action complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Rain and its defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and they failed to disclose essential adverse facts about the company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint claims that the company concealed risks associated with the design of its Phase 3 MANTRA study, particularly the decision to proceed directly to Phase 3 from Phase 1. As a result, the company’s statements about the trial and the likelihood of FDA approval were allegedly misleading during the Class Period. The complaint further asserts that defendants’ positive statements about Rain’s business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis and were materially misleading throughout the relevant times.
