RARE Investors Have Opportunity to Join Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. Fraud Investigation with the Schall Law Firm
The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. Ultragenyx and development partner Mereo BioPharma Group plc issued a press release on July 9, 2025, to announce that the 'randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 3 portion of the Orbit study evaluating UX143 (setrusumab) in pediatric and young adult patients with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is progressing toward a final analysis." The Company disclosed that this final analysis would occur "around the end of the year." Based on this news, shares of Ultragenyx fell by more than 25.1% on the next day.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at bschall@schallfirm.com.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
5 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
IQGen Launches Beta Platform to Rebuild U.S. Solar Market with Inclusive Financing Tools
Dover, DE - July 21, 2025 - IQGen today announced the beta launch of its all-in-one solar financing and development platform, engineered to revive a solar market under pressure from rising rates, credit denials, and stalled pipelines. The platform introduces powerful financial products to help homeowners, EPCs, Sales Orgs and developers deploy projects with stability and flexibility. Flagship Products Powering the Platform Equity Hybrid Option – A Lifeline for Credit-Denied Homeowners This offering serves homeowners turned away by traditional lenders by providing access with just a 500 minimum credit score and no payments until the home is sold or inherited. Now available in 15 states including California, Florida, and Arizona, it removes debt burden barriers to clean energy. Commercial PPAs & Community Solar – Scaling to 50MW IQGen enables developers to structure power purchase agreements and tax equity for commercial and community solar projects up to 50 megawatts. With rapid execution tools and direct access to capital, it helps scale clean power in schools, cities, and industrial sectors. Solar Hybrid Mortgage (Powered by AWM) Designed for homeowners with credit scores as low as 580, this product expands access across 39 states, offering a smart alternative when solar-only credit fails. Backed by AWM, it's one of the most inclusive clean energy financing tools in the market. Purpose-Built Technology The IQGen platform streamlines the solar lifecycle—from lead to funding—by integrating project tracking, lender matching, and real-time analytics into one seamless experience for developers, installers, and financiers. 'Solar is broken for the people who need it most. We're fixing that,' said Mark Chavez, Target Intelligence Air Force Veteran and now President of Business Development for IQGen. 'Whether you're losing projects to credit denials or a homeowner told 'no' by traditional lenders, IQGen is here to say 'yes' and get your project over the finish line.' About IQGen IQGen is a fintech-powered solar platform delivering inclusive financing, development tools, and clean energy access for U.S. homeowners and developers. Learn more at Media Contact Company Name: IQGen, LLC Contact Person: Mark Chavez Email: Send Email Country: United States Website:
Globe and Mail
29 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
NEOG INVESTOR ALERT: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that Neogen Corporation Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Neogen Corporation (NASDAQ: NEOG) common stock between January 5, 2023 and June 3, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until September 16, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Neogen class action lawsuit. Captioned Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund v. Neogen Corporation, No. 25-cv-00802 (W.D. Mich.), the Neogen class action lawsuit charges Neogen and certain of Neogen'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 Neogen 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: Neogen, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of various products and services dedicated to food and animal safety. According to the complaint, in December 2021, it was announced that Neogen would merge with the Food Safety Division of the 3M Company, with the deal closing in September 2022. The Neogen class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants led investors to believe that Neogen's integration with 3M was progressing much better than it actually was; and (ii) even when Neogen was forced to reveal that certain 'inefficiencies' arose as a result of the integration, defendants downplayed them and assured investors that they were fully aware and committed to resolving them quickly. The Neogen class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 10, 2025, Neogen announced its preliminary second quarter of 2025 financial results, revealing, among other things, that: (i) GAAP net income in the quarter was significantly negative due to a $461 million non-cash goodwill impairment charge related to the 3M acquisition; (ii) Neogen cut its fiscal year 2025 revenue and EBITDA guidance; and (iii) Neogen concluded that, as of November 30, 2024, Neogen had material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. On this news, the price of Neogen common stock fell more than 5%, according to the complaint. Then, on April 9, 2025, the Neogen class action lawsuit alleges that Neogen announced its third quarter of 2025 financial results, reporting a loss of $11 million, or $0.05 per share, compared with a loss of $2 million, or $0.01 per share, a year earlier. Neogen further announced that revenue fell 3.4% to $221 million which had been negatively impacted by integration issues, Neogen was cutting its fiscal year 2025 revenue and EBITDA outlook, capital expenditures were expected to be $100 million as a result of lowered adjusted EBITDA and a 'pull-forward of . . . integration capex into fiscal 2025,' and that CEO, defendant John Adent, would be stepping down. On this news, the price of Neogen common stock fell 28%, according to the complaint. Finally, on June 4, 2025, Neogen revealed that it expected 'EBITDA margin to probably be around the high-teens' which represented a considerable drop from the previous quarter's profit margin of 22%, blaming the expected shortfall on 'elevated . . . inventory write-offs,' according to the complaint. The Neogen class action lawsuit alleges that on this news, the price of Neogen common stock fell more than 17%. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Neogen common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Neogen 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 Neogen class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Neogen class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Neogen 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:
Winnipeg Free Press
35 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Looming over two cases threatening Musk's car company is a single question: Can he be trusted?
MIAMI (AP) — Elon Musk fought court cases on opposite coasts Monday, raising a question about the billionaire that could either speed his plan to put self-driving Teslas on U.S. roads or throw up a major roadblock: Can this wildly successful man who tends to exaggerate really be trusted? In Miami, a Tesla driver who has admitted he was wrong to reach for a dropped cell phone moments before a deadly accident, spoke of the danger of putting too much faith in Musk's technology — in this case his Autopilot program. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said a visibly shaken George McGee, who slammed into a woman out stargazing, sending her 75 feet through the air. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' In unusual coincidence, regulators arguing an Oakland, California, case tried to pin exaggerated talk about the same Tesla technology at the center of a request to suspend the carmaker from being able to sell vehicles in the state. Musk's tendency to talk big — whether its his cars, his rockets or his government costing-cutting efforts — have landed him in trouble with investors, regulators and courts before, but rarely at such a delicate moment. After his social media spat with President Donald Trump, Musk can no longer count on a light regulatory touch from Washington. Meanwhile, sales of his electric cars have plunged and so a hit to his safety reputation could threaten his next big project: rolling out driverless robotaxis — hundreds of thousands of them — in several U.S. cities by the end of next year. The Miami case holds other dangers, too. Lawyers for the family of the dead woman, Naibel Benavides Leon, recently convinced the judge overseeing the jury trial to allow them to argue for punitive damages. A car crash lawyer not involved in the case, but closely following it, said that could cost Tesla tens of millions of dollars, or possibly more. 'I've seen punitive damages go to the hundreds of millions, so that is the floor,' said Miguel Custodio of Los Angeles-based Custodio & Dubey. 'It is also a signal to other plaintiffs that they can also ask for punitive damages, and then the payments could start compounding.' Tesla did not reply for a request for comment. That Tesla has allowed the Miami case to proceed to trial is surprising. It has settled at least four deadly accidents involving Autopilot, including payments just last week to a Florida family of a Tesla driver. That said, Tesla was victorious in two other jury cases, both in California, that also sought to lay blame on its technology for crashes. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Miami case argue that Tesla's driver-assistance feature, called Autopilot, should have warned the driver and braked when his Model S sedan blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles-an-hour in an April 2019 crash. Tesla said that drivers are warned not to rely on Autopilot, or its more advanced Full Self-Driving system. It say the fault entirely lies with the 'distracted driver' just like so many other 'accidents since cellphones were invented.' Driver McGee settled a separate suit brought by the family of Benavides and her severely injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. Shown dashcam video Monday of his car jumping the road a split second before killing Benavides, McGee was clearly shaken. Asked if he had seen those images before, McGee pinched his lips, shook his head, then squeaked out a response, 'No.' Tesla's attorney sought to show that McGee was fully to blame, asking if he had ever contacted Tesla for additional instructions about how Autopilot or any other safety features worked. McGee said he had not, though he was heavy user of the features. He said he had driven the same road home from work 30 or 40 times. Under questioning he also acknowledged he alone was responsible for watching the road and hitting the brakes. But lawyers for the Benavides family had another chance to parry that line of argument and asked McGee if he would have taken his eyes off the road and reached for his phone had he been driving any car other than a Tesla on Autopilot. McGee responded, 'I don't believe so.' The case is expected to continue for two more weeks. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. In the California case, the state's Department of Motor Vehicles is arguing before an administrative judge that Tesla has misled drivers by exaggerating the capabilities of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features. A court filing claims even those feature names are misleading because they offer just partial self-driving Musk has been warned by federal regulators to stop making public comments suggesting Full Self-Driving allows his cars to drive themselves because it could lead to overreliance on the system, resulting in possible crashes and deaths. He also has run into trouble with regulators for Autopilot. In 2023, the company had to recall 2.3 million vehicles for problems with the technology and is now under investigation for saying it fixed the issue though it's unclear it has, according to regulatory documents. The California case is expected to last another four days. —- Condon reported from New York.
