logo
URGN INVESTOR DEADLINE: UroGen Pharma Ltd. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit

URGN INVESTOR DEADLINE: UroGen Pharma Ltd. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit

Malaysian Reserve15 hours ago

SAN DIEGO, June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of UroGen Pharma Ltd. (NASDAQ: URGN) securities between July 27, 2023 and May 15, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until July 28, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit. Captioned Cockrell v. UroGen Pharma Ltd., 25-cv-06088 (D.N.J.), the UroGen class action lawsuit charges UroGen as well as certain of UroGen's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-urogen-pharma-ltd-class-action-lawsuit-urgn.html
You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: UroGen engages in the development and commercialization of solutions for specialty cancers. According to the complaint, UroGen's lead pipeline product is UGN-102 (mitomycin), an intravesical solution intended to treat low-grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.
The UroGen class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) UroGen's ENVISION clinical study for UGN-102 was not designed to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness of UGN-102 because it lacked a concurrent control arm; (ii) as a result, UroGen would have difficulty demonstrating that the duration of response endpoint was attributable to UGN-102; (iii) UroGen failed to heed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ('FDA') warnings about the study design used to support a new drug application ('NDA') for UGN-102; and (iv) as a result, there was a substantial risk that the NDA for UGN-102 would not be approved.
The UroGen class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 16, 2025, the FDA published a briefing document in advance of its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting regarding UroGen's NDA for UGN-102, which stated that '[g]iven that ENVISION lacked a concurrent control arm, the primary endpoints of complete response (CR) and duration of response (DOR) are difficult to interpret,' and that the FDA had 'recommended a randomized trial design to the Applicant several times during their product's development due to concerns with interpreting efficacy results' but UroGen 'chose not to conduct a randomized trial with a design and endpoints that the FDA considered appropriate.' On this news, the price of UroGen stock fell nearly 26%, according to the complaint.
Then, on May 21, 2025, the UroGen class action lawsuit further alleges that the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted against approving the UGN-102 NDA, finding that the overall benefit-risk of the investigation therapy UGN-102 is not favorable in patients with recurrent low-grade, intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. On this news, the price of UroGen stock fell nearly 45%, according to the complaint.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired UroGen securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the UroGen 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 UroGen class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the UroGen class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DV INVESTOR DEADLINE: DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit
DV INVESTOR DEADLINE: DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit

Malaysian Reserve

time14 hours ago

  • Malaysian Reserve

DV INVESTOR DEADLINE: DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit

SAN DIEGO, June 7, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: DV) common stock between November 10, 2023 and February 27, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until July 21, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit. Captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc., No. 25-cv-04332 (S.D.N.Y.), the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit charges DoubleVerify as well as certain of DoubleVerify's top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@ CASE ALLEGATIONS: DoubleVerify provides media effectiveness platforms. The DoubleVerify class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) DoubleVerify's customers were shifting their ad spending from open exchanges to closed platforms, where DoubleVerify's technological capabilities were limited and competed directly with native tools provided by platforms like Meta Platforms and Amazon; (ii) DoubleVerify's ability to monetize on its Activation Services was limited because the development of its technology for closed platforms was significantly more expensive and time-consuming than disclosed to investors; (iii) DoubleVerify's Activation Services in connection with certain closed platforms would take several years to monetize; (iv) DoubleVerify's competitors were better positioned to incorporate AI into their offerings on closed platforms, which impaired DoubleVerify's ability to compete effectively and adversely impacted DoubleVerify's profits; (v) DoubleVerify systematically overbilled its customers for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms; and (vi) DoubleVerify's risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities. The DoubleVerify class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 28, 2024, DoubleVerify issued lower revenue growth expectations for the first quarter of 2024 due to 'a slow start by brand advertisers and a slow ramp by recently signed' customers. On this news, the price of DoubleVerify stock fell more than 21%, according to the complaint. Then, on May 7, 2024, as the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit alleges, DoubleVerify cut its full-year 2024 revenue outlook due to customers that were pulling back on their ad spending. On this news, the price of DoubleVerify stock fell nearly 39%, according to the complaint. The DoubleVerify class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 27, 2025, DoubleVerify reported lower-than-expected fourth quarter 2024 sales and earnings due in part to reduced customer spending, and defendants further disclosed that the shift of ad dollars from open exchanges to closed platforms was negatively impacting DoubleVerify. On this news, the price of DoubleVerify stock fell more than 36%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired DoubleVerify common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the DoubleVerify 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 DoubleVerify class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 info@

URGN INVESTOR DEADLINE: UroGen Pharma Ltd. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit
URGN INVESTOR DEADLINE: UroGen Pharma Ltd. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit

Malaysian Reserve

time15 hours ago

  • Malaysian Reserve

URGN INVESTOR DEADLINE: UroGen Pharma Ltd. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit

SAN DIEGO, June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of UroGen Pharma Ltd. (NASDAQ: URGN) securities between July 27, 2023 and May 15, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until July 28, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit. Captioned Cockrell v. UroGen Pharma Ltd., 25-cv-06088 (D.N.J.), the UroGen class action lawsuit charges UroGen as well as certain of UroGen's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@ CASE ALLEGATIONS: UroGen engages in the development and commercialization of solutions for specialty cancers. According to the complaint, UroGen's lead pipeline product is UGN-102 (mitomycin), an intravesical solution intended to treat low-grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The UroGen class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) UroGen's ENVISION clinical study for UGN-102 was not designed to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness of UGN-102 because it lacked a concurrent control arm; (ii) as a result, UroGen would have difficulty demonstrating that the duration of response endpoint was attributable to UGN-102; (iii) UroGen failed to heed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ('FDA') warnings about the study design used to support a new drug application ('NDA') for UGN-102; and (iv) as a result, there was a substantial risk that the NDA for UGN-102 would not be approved. The UroGen class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 16, 2025, the FDA published a briefing document in advance of its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting regarding UroGen's NDA for UGN-102, which stated that '[g]iven that ENVISION lacked a concurrent control arm, the primary endpoints of complete response (CR) and duration of response (DOR) are difficult to interpret,' and that the FDA had 'recommended a randomized trial design to the Applicant several times during their product's development due to concerns with interpreting efficacy results' but UroGen 'chose not to conduct a randomized trial with a design and endpoints that the FDA considered appropriate.' On this news, the price of UroGen stock fell nearly 26%, according to the complaint. Then, on May 21, 2025, the UroGen class action lawsuit further alleges that the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted against approving the UGN-102 NDA, finding that the overall benefit-risk of the investigation therapy UGN-102 is not favorable in patients with recurrent low-grade, intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. On this news, the price of UroGen stock fell nearly 45%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired UroGen securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the UroGen 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 UroGen class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the UroGen class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the UroGen class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 info@

DNUT INVESTOR ALERT: Krispy Kreme, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Securities Class Action Lawsuit
DNUT INVESTOR ALERT: Krispy Kreme, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Securities Class Action Lawsuit

Malaysian Reserve

time2 days ago

  • Malaysian Reserve

DNUT INVESTOR ALERT: Krispy Kreme, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Securities Class Action Lawsuit

SAN DIEGO, June 5, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that The Krispy Kreme class action lawsuit – captioned Cameron v. Krispy Kreme, Inc., No. 25-cv-00332 (W.D.N.C.) – seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Krispy Kreme, Inc. (NASDAQ: DNUT) securities and charges Krispy Kreme and certain of Krispy Kreme's executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Krispy Kreme class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@ Lead plaintiff motions for the Krispy Kreme class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than Tuesday, July 15, 2025. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Krispy Kreme, together with its subsidiaries, produces doughnuts. On October 26, 2022, Krispy Kreme commenced a small-scale test to offer doughnuts at McDonald's Corporation restaurants in Louisville, Kentucky and the surrounding area and on March 26, 2024, Krispy Kreme and McDonald's announced they would expand their partnership nationwide beginning in the second half of 2024, the complaint alleges. The Krispy Kreme class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) demand for Krispy Kreme products declined materially at McDonald's locations after the initial marketing launch; (ii) demand at McDonald's locations was a driver of declining average sales per door per week; (iii) the partnership with McDonald's was not profitable; (iv) the foregoing posed a substantial risk to maintaining the partnership with McDonald's; and (v) as a result, Krispy Kreme would pause expansion into new McDonald's locations. The Krispy Kreme class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 8, 2025, Krispy Kreme released its first quarter 2025 financial results, reporting its '[n]et revenue was $375.2 million . . . a decline of 15.3%' and a '[n]et [l]oss [of] $33.4 million, compared to prior year net loss of $6.7 million.' Additionally, Krispy Kreme announced that it is 'reassessing [its] deployment schedule together with McDonald's' and 'withdrawing its prior full year outlook and not updating it' due in part to 'uncertainty around the McDonald's deployment schedule,' the complaint alleges. On this news, the price of Krispy Kreme shares fell by nearly 25%, the Krispy Kreme class action lawsuit alleges. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Krispy Kreme securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Krispy Kreme 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 Krispy Kreme class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Krispy Kreme class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Krispy Kreme class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 info@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store