Article Type: Lawsuit

Chipotle GMO Free Class Action Lawsuit

Chipotle Mexican Grill has been touting a campaign called “G-M-Over It,” and called itself, “the first national restaurant company…to cook only with non-GMO ingredients.” A recently filed class action suit says otherwise. Plaintiff Leslie Reilly of Florida has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The class period is from September 10, 2011 to the present, when Chipotle allegedly purposefully misrepresented to its consumers that its food contains only non-GMO ingredients. Yet, the suit asserts, Chipotle’s meat products come from animals that feed on GMO products, including corn and soy. The sour cream and cheese Chipotle serves come from dairy farms that feed their animals GMOs.

GMO is a “genetically modified” or “genetically engineered” organism, a plant or animal whose genetic material has been altered in an unnatural way. According to the suit, Chipotle is unfairly advertising products made with non-GMOs, since animals that are fed GMO products cannot be considered GMO-free. The marketing campaign appears to target environmental and health conscious consumers who are willing to pay more money for a GMO-free food product. The suit alleges Chipotle intentionally conceals and/or fails to disclose that not all of its food is GMO-free in order to optimize sales.

The FDA has stated that a whole food product called “GMO-free” is misleading if even one ingredient comes from a genetically modified organism. According to Florida law, where the suit was filed, Chipotle’s marketing and advertising are false, unlawful, and misleading, for inferior or undesirable ingredients or for products that contain ingredients not disclosed. The plaintiffs in the class action suit claim that they have been damaged by Chipotle’s deceptive and unfair conduct, and that they paid premium prices for a worthless and misbranded product they would not have otherwise consumed had they known the true ingredients.

Mattress Firm ADA Class Action Lawsuit

This is a class action lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent discrimination, which includes equal access to Internet websites for services to order bedding online. The complaint alleges that Mattress Firm has discriminated against plaintiff Gomez on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations by failing to adequately program its website to accurately and sufficiently integrate with common commercially available screen reader software utilized by plaintiff Gomez and others with visual disabilities.

The plaintiff class is comprised of individuals with disabilities, residents of Florida, who are visually impaired (legally blind) and who cannot access and comprehend the Internet and the websites that operate therein. In order to comprehend information available on the Internet and access websites, plaintiffs must use commercially available screen reader software (which is commercially available) to interface with the various websites. Defendant, Mattress Firm, Inc., is the owner and operator of a chain of bedding stores and the associated with them Internet website, www.mattressfirm.com, which is accessible by the general public. The website is offered to consumers as a tool to order bedding from Mattress Firm chain bedding stores, which are places of public accommodation as well.

According to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), every publicly accessible place and place of public accommodation must comply with the ADA, which means they must ensure that the disabled individuals enjoy full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services afforded to the general public by making reasonable modifications to its services. Public accommodations that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods or services, must offer those communications through adequate accessible means as well.

Mattress Firm’s website does not provide screen reader software or other means to accommodate the visually impaired, nor does it interface with screen reader software so that visually impaired individuals can comprehend the website. Plaintiff Gomez utilizes JAWS Screen Reader software, which is the most popular screen reader software utilized worldwide as it allows individuals who are visually impaired to comprehend information available on the internet and access websites. Defendant’s website, however, did not integrate with plaintiff Gomez’s screen reader software nor was there any function within defendant’s website to permit access for visually impaired through other means. Plaintiff Gomez was unable to comprehend the Mattress Firm’s website and purchase the mattress as he intended.

As a result of the inaccessibility of the defendant’s website and by the barriers to access in its website, the defendant has denied individuals with disabilities who are visually impaired full and equal enjoyment of the information and services that the defendant ahs made available to the general public.

Toys “R” Us, Inc. ADA Class Action Lawsuit

The plaintiff in this action, a United States Veteran and a single amputee above the knee, has a service-related disability and is, therefore, limited in a major life activity of walking, which causes him to be dependent upon a wheelchair for mobility. Defendant, Toys “R” Us, is the world’s leading toy and baby products retailer, and owns 864 stores throughout the United State. Plaintiff Labenski has patronized the Toys “R” Us stores in the past but due to the parking and path of travel access barriers at the stores’ facilities, plaintiff was denied full access to and was deterred from fully using the facilities.

Plaintiff Labenski visited two of the defendant’s stores in New Jersey and at both properties plaintiff experienced difficulty and risk in moving due to the excessive surface slopes of the purportedly accessible parking spaces and curb ramps and access aisles. On behalf of plaintiff, investigators examined other Toys “R” Us stores and found similar ADA non-compliant facilities. Four stores in New Jersey and three stores in New York were investigated to show excessive slopes, curb ramps and inaccessible designated parking spaces.

This class action is brought under Title III of the ADA and seeks a permanent injunction aimed at having Toys “R” Us modify its policy and alter its facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The ADA prohibits discrimination in the activities of places of public accommodation and requires places of public accommodation to comply with ADA standards and to be readily accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with disabilities. Toys “R” Us owns and operates and leases places of public accommodation as defined by the ADA.

The complaint, therefore, requires the defendant to remove existing architectural barriers from its stores’ parking lots and bring defendant’s centralized management policies regarding ADA in compliance, both in their conception and implementation.

Ethicon Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiary Ethicon, one of seven manufacturers of transvaginal mesh implant devices subject to pending state and federal mass tort litigation, have been named in over 33,000 lawsuits alleging damages from use of J&J vaginal mesh products.

Ethicon introduced the Gynecare Prolift onto the market in March 2005, after J & J filed a 510(k) application for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.

Transvaginal mesh systems are surgically inserted into the vagina to treat conditions including pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence. POP occurs when the structures that hold the pelvic organs become so weak or stretched that the organs move from their original position and prolapse into the vagina. Various mesh product issues, such as shrinking, are alleged to cause serious adverse physical effects in implant patients, including:

Mesh erosion
Pain
Vaginal scarring and shortening
Pain during sex
POP recurrence
Urinary problems

The FDA received more than 4,000 adverse event reports related to transvaginal mesh implants between 2005 and 2010. In 2008, the FDA issued a public health notification titled “Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh in Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Stress Urinary Incontinence.” In 2011, the FDA issued a Safety Communication and detailed white paper addressed to doctors and patients warning that the use of a mesh in POP surgeries increased complication risks without any symptomatic benefits over non-mesh operations. Mesh erosion or contraction was the most frequent complication cited in the FDA reports.….” The FDA advised doctors to “recognize that in most cases, POP can be treated successfully without mesh, thus avoiding the risk of mesh-related complications.” After the FDA issued postmarket surveillance study orders (“522 orders”) to all manufacturers of urogynecologic surgical mesh products in January 2012, some mesh manufacturers withdrew certain products from the market. On May 10, 2012, J&J and Ethicon notified the FDA that they would discontinue marketing and selling four vaginal mesh implant systems:

· Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System;

· Prolift MTM;

· TVT Secur; and

· Prosima.

J&J and Ethicon requested FDA approval to continue to sell its Gyencare Gynemesh system, with an updated label.

Approximately 75,000 of the over 100,000 mesh product liability claims filed against mesh manufacturers are currently pending before Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in Multidistrict Litigation No. 2187 (MDL) established in 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

In February 2013, a New Jersey Superior Court jury returned a $11.1 million verdict ($3.35 million for compensatory damages and $7.76 million for punitive damages) in a J&J/Ethicon transvaginal mesh lawsuit claiming damages from medical complications (including 18 post implant surgeries) from a Gynecare Prolift implant. The jury found that Ethicon fraudulently misrepresented the safety of the device in its marketing materials and failed to warn physicians about the medical risks. On appeal, Judge Carol E. Higbee upheld the verdict, ruling that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the patient’s claim that Ethicon had withheld warnings of the risks of the Gynecare mesh, despite knowing that there were problems with it. Judge Higbee noted that the substantial size of the verdict was not excessive because the jury could have granted additional damages. In September 2014, the second Ethicon case to go to trial in the MDL awarded $3.27 million to a patient, finding Ethicon sold faulty devices and failed to warn patients and their doctors of the side effects risks.

Tyco IVS Mesh Lawsuits

In 2001, the IVS Tunneler® (Tyco IVS), created by United States Surgical, a division of Tyco Healthcare (spun off as Covidien in 2007 and acquired by Medtronic in 2014), was introduced as the first U. S. Food and Drug Administration approved transvaginal mesh delivery system designed to treat patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence.

Tyco surgical mesh devices, manufactured and marketed by Covidien as pelvic floor repair kits, have been used in thousands of procedures. A Tyco IVS kit includes a disposable, single-use surgical tool comprised of a stainless steel introducer, blunt tip stylette, and a non-absorbable mesh strip. The introducer device (“Tunneler”) is used to implant the polypropylene mesh tape transvaginally and positioned to reinforce the weakened vaginal wall, or in procedures treating stress urinary incontinence, support the urethra. Covidien has manufactured, marketed, and sold a number of devices which are also sold by different companies, particularly C.R. Bard, inc. (Bard) under the names:

IVS Tunneler Intra-Vaginal Sling
IVS Tunneler Placement Device
Parietene Polypropylene Mesh
Surgipro Polyproylene Surgical Mesh

Covidien marketed vaginal slings as a minimally invasive way to restore pelvic anatomy without the risks of open abdominal surgery. Patients have reported side effects from vaginal mesh implants made by various manufacturers, including:

Mesh erosion
Pain
Vaginal scarring
Pain during sex
POP recurrence
Urinary problems
Mesh infection

Patients who experience complications from a failed vaginal sling often require revision surgery to remove the defective product and multiple excision surgeries may not result in complete removal of the mesh. Tyco IVS mesh patients may be at greater risk for complications since the Tyco IVS mesh has smaller pores than other mesh products, which could potentially promote infection since some cells cannot pass through the smaller pores.

Approximately 75,000 of the over 100,000 mesh product liability claims filed against seven mesh manufacturers are currently pending before Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in Multidistrict Litigation No. 2187 established in 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Covidien is not named as a defendant in these cases but is named as a co-defendant in approximately 11,300 cases involving mesh products provided to Bard. In June 2015, Covidien announced it had agreed to settle some of the pending claims.

Marvell Technology (MRVL) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Marvell and its top executives oversaw a flawed process that resulted in serious revenue recognition problems in the second quarter of fiscal year 2016. First reports indicate that the company may have overstated revenues by 7 to 8%.

What investors are part of this class action? The class period is currently defined as purchasers of Marvell securities between November 20, 2014 and September 10, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Marvell Technology Group, LTD. common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol "MRVL."

Procedural Status: This lawsuit was filed on September 11, 2015 and is captioned Luna v. Marvell Technology Group, et al. It was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Its civil docket number is 1:15cv07214. The lead plaintiff deadline is November 10, 2015.

Marvell Technology Group is a fabless semiconductor company, shipping more than a billion chips annually. Marvell's purported expertise in microprocessor architecture and digital signal processing drives multiple platforms including high volume storage solutions, mobile and wireless, networking, consumer and green products.

The Company operates in a crowded, competitive and declining semiconductor market. Given the intellectual property challenges frequently brought by competitors, a firm of this type must hold sufficient funds in reserve for litigation, expenses and losses that can result.

It is alleged that Marvell did not allocate sufficiently for these types of essential reserves and did not maintain proper controls over its financial reporting. The complaint states that severe misstatements of critical accounting metrics made their way into the Company's financial statements, misleading investors and failing to disclose material facts. Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that:

Marvell did not disclose or mislead about the fact that the Company had engaged in inppropriate and inaccurate revenue recognition practices, resulting in potential revenue overstatement of between 7-8%,
The Company's senior management encouraged a closed and ineffective control environment,
key accounting metrics were repeatedly and publicly misstated,
the Company consistently lacked adequate internal controls,
statements made by Defendants about Marvell's operations and prospects were false and/or lacked reasonable factual basis.

On September 11 of 2015, Marvell issued a press release in which it reported a loss of $382.4 million for the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2016, despite analysts having predicted, on average, a quarterly profit of $11.9 million. It was also announced that the Company could not timely file its first quarterly report due to an Audit Committee probe into its internal controls and accounting practices. It was also revealed that the Committee had concerns about the Company's procedures for establishing litigation reserves.

As a result of this news, Marvell shares fell $1.71 per share, representing a drop of over 16% to close at $8.84 on September 11. This decline caused the plaintiff and others similarly situated to sustain substantial financial losses, according to the complaint.

http://www.marvell.com/

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/MRVL:US

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits

The number of women seeking legal recourse because of problems with surgically implanted transvaginal mesh is growing exponentially. Complications from transvaginal mesh were first reported by the FDA in 2008, when the agency made it known that more than 1,000 complaints had been registered against nine different manufacturers over the previous three years. Then, from 2008 to 2010, the FDA received more than 1,500 reports of complications from recipients of the mesh, five times the amount it logged from 2005 to 2007.

Transvaginal mesh is a medical device implanted in women who suffer from pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence. It is made of porous material, either synthetic or biological, and it is meant to repair weak and/or damaged tissue. A common problem reported with transvaginal mesh is that the synthetic material has sharp edges that cut into the tissue, and can penetrate the bladder, uterus, and bowel. Patches of the implanted mesh do not stay in place, moving around the tissue and causing damage. Some forms of the synthetic mesh are petroleum-based, and petroleum is a substance that attracts and breeds bacteria. Infections due to petroleum-based transvaginal mesh have led to chronic problems such as incontinence, UTI, back pain, and sensations of lower body paralysis. Death has occurred from severe infections due to transvaginal mesh.

Reported symptoms from women with implanted transvaginal mesh include bleeding, vaginal scarring, painful intercourse, mesh erosion, general pain and discomfort, tissue and blood vessel perforation, infections, and urinary problems.

Removing transvaginal mesh is problematic. Some women attempt multiple surgeries for complete removal, but the mesh material often fuses itself to the vaginal tissue, causing chronic health problems to the recipient for life.

Lawsuits filed by recipients of transvaginal mesh allege that manufacturers of the medical device provided false and misleading information about the safety of their product, and the companies neglected their legal duty to communicate the safety and effectiveness of the mesh. Additional allegations of lawsuits against the mesh manufacturers are fraud, concealing potential harm caused by the product, intentionally misleading the FDA, medical community, and public about product safety, failing to conduct proper testing to determine risks, failing to provide safe and effective means of removal, and failing to warn of possible complications and injury. Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for pain and suffering and medical bills, among other losses and damages.

The FDA has determined that severe complications for women who have received transvaginal mesh are not rare. At least ten deaths have been reported from problems related to transvaginal mesh. Reports of serious complications are expected to escalate even further because 100,000 transvaginal mesh implants are conducted annually. The FDA reports indicate potentially tens of thousands of injuries will be recorded, and possibly hundreds of deaths from complications tied to transvaginal mesh.

Any person affected by health problems due to transvaginal mesh should contact an attorney as soon as possible, as some states have time limitations on transvaginal mesh claims and awarding compensation to those who may be suffering.

DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant Lawsuits

DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. (DePuy), a unit of Johnson & Johnson (acquired in 1998) which describes itself as the first commercial orthopedics company in the United States, produces several hip replacement systems marketed to physicians in the United States and abroad. More than 7,000 complaints have been filed in the current mass tort action regarding the metal-on-metal Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System (Pinnacle device), although no Pinnacle device recall has occurred to date. The Pinnacle device and pending claims are similar to the ongoing litigation against DePuy regarding its ASR™ XL Acetabular Hip System (ASR) and ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Pinnacle device metal liner 510(k) application, based on a similar DePuy product previously approved. The metal liner is intended to reduce friction between and improve the fit of the ball-and-socket features that comprise DePuy hip implant devices. The Pinnacle device design differs from the ASR metal-on-metal construction in that it is available in several versions for surgeons to select based on individual patient needs: ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-metal, and metal-on-metal. Two of these designs include an interface of different metals. One design involves a titanium, porous acetabular shell with a chrome/cobalt acetabular insert, which design includes a large “crevice” between the different metal surfaces and substantially increases product corrosion. Also of concern is the chrome/cobalt acetabular insert contact with the chrome/cobalt femoral head. The FDA has expressed concern over the risk of danger to patients when both surfaces are made of the same metal. A third area of concern is where the chrome/cobalt femoral head connects with the titanium femoral stem, where motion and friction at the connection site significantly increases the risk of Pinnacle device failure due to “metallosis” resulting from corrosion of the metal, a condition in which metal particle debris is released into the blood with damage resulting to the tissue surrounding the implant.

Problems that have been reported when a metal liner is used with the Pinnacle device include:

Hip pain
Failure of the Pinnacle device
Difficulty walking or standing
Loosening of the Pinnacle device
Hip replacement revision surgery required
Metallosis (metal poisoning)

Depuy stopped selling the metal-on-metal version of the Pinnacle device in August 2013 after the FDA stated it would require device makers to submit new versions of the hip implant for pre-market approval.

The Pinnacle device MDL was established in the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court (U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade) in May 2011 (DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2244). The court has designated ten cases to be prepared for trial in 2015, following an October 2014 defense verdict in the first Pinnacle device case that went to trial. In the related ASR proceedings, Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay $2.5 billion in November 2013 to settle 7,500 of the ASR cases. The ASR settlement agreement provides a $250,000 base award to U.S. citizens and residents who are more than 180 days from their hip replacement surgery, and prior to August 31, 2013, had to undergo revision surgery to remove the faulty ASR product.

Cellceutix (CTIX) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

This federal securities fraud class action is brought against Cellceutix, a clinical stage biotechnology company, and certain of its officers and directors for violations of federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that defendants knowingly made materially false and misleading statements as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operational, and financial performance.

Who Is Affected?

This federal securities fraud class action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Cellceutix securities between May 10, 2013 and August 6, 2015, both dates inclusive. Cellceutix is a clinical stage biotechnology company that engages in the development of treatments of cancerous and degenerative diseases. Cellceutix is incorporated in Nevada with its principal place of business located in Beverly, Massachusetts. Its common stock trades on the OTC Pink marketplace under ticker symbol “CTIX.”

Procedural History

The lawsuit was filed on September 11, 2015 and is captioned O'Connell et al. v. Cellceutix Corporation et al. It was filed in the New York Southern District Court. Its civil docket number is 1:15cv07194. The class period runs from May 10, 2013 through August 6, 2015, inclusive. The lead plaintiff deadline is November 10, 2015.

Cellceutix is focused on discovering small molecule therapy drugs for hard to treat diseases with significant medical need, including drug-resistant cancers, psoriasis, autism and inflammatory disease.

Brilacidin is not effective.

Brilacidin is a drug owned by Cellceutix, which is currently undergoing clinical studies in order to treat and kill bacterial infections. In September 2013, Cellceutix announced the purchase of Brilacidin from PolyMedix, Inc. and touted the efficacy of Brilacidin in combating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, stating:

“The acquisition includes PolyMedix’s flagship drug candidate Brilacidin, a first-in-class defensin-mimetic antibiotic that has completed a Phase 2a clinical trial demonstrating safety, tolerability and efficacy in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus.”

Similarly, in April 2015, Cellceutix displayed a posted at the 2015 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases in Copenhagen, which touted Brilacidin’s ability to kill bacteria such as Staphylococcus aures and E.Coli.

2. Kevetrin does not activate the p-53 gene, which is a tumor suppressor.

Kevetrin is a drug owned by Cellceutix, which is currently undergoing clinical studies in order to treat cancer. In January 2015, Cellceutix issued a press release reporting the near complete disappearance of a lesion in the spleen of a Stage 4 ovarian cancer patient who was enrolled in the company’s Phase 1 clinical trial of anti-drug Kevetrin. Cellceutix touted Kevetrin’s ability to activate the p-53 gene, which suppresses cancer tumors.

“In nearly all cancers, p53 is deficient or mutated , thus failing to perform its role as a master cell regulator, which exacerbates tumor progression and metastasis…Kevetrin is having an impact on returning p53 to its effectiveness as a tumor suppressor.”

Similarly, in May 2015, Cellceutix presented a poster at the 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting in Chicago, which touted Kevetrin’s anti-tumor activity: “Kevetin was shown to activate wild type p53 and degrade mutant p53.”

3. Defendant Krishna Menon, a co-founder, President and Director of the company, did not earn his PhD from Harvard University.

In May 2013, Future Woman magazine published a profile article on defendant Menon in which Menon confirmed earning his PhD in Pharmacology from Harvard University.

All of the foregoing statements were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose these adverse facts pertaining to the company’s business, products, and directors’ backgrounds, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.

As a result of the foregoing, Cellceutix’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Fiat Chrysler Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

This securities fraud class action complaint alleges that Chrysler and its chief executives engaged in a scheme to defraud and deceive plaintiffs by making various untrue statements of material facts.

Who Is Affected?

The complaint is brought on behalf of purchasers of Chrysler securities between August 1, 2014 and July 24, 2015, inclusive. Chrysler was founded in October 2014 by the merger of Fiat Group Automobiles and Chrysler LLC. Chrysler’s stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “FCAU.”

Procedural History

The lawsuit was filed on September 11, 2015 and is captioned Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al. It was filed in the New York Southern District Court. Its civil docket number is 1:15cv07199. The class period runs from August 1, 2014 through July 24, 2015. The lead plaintiff deadline is November 10, 2015.

During the class period, defendants failed to disclose that:

1. flaws in the company’s manufacturing processes, supply chain, electronic security measures, and/or quality control rendered at least 3.1 million Chrysler cars and trucks unsafe to drive;

In June 2015, Chrysler recalled 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango SUVs advising approximately 65 drivers to immediately stop driving their vehicles. An additional 7,690 vehicles were subject to recall as well because they were built during the same 8-day period. The announcement caused Chrysler stock to fall 7%

In July 2015, Chrysler issued another recall affecting approximately 1.4 million Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango SUVs. The announcement caused Chrysler’s stock to fall 2.5%

In September 2015, Chrysler issued another recall notice affecting 7,810 Jeep Renegade SUVs, news of which caused Chrysler’s stock to fall another 2%

2. the company’s slow completion rates for recalls, slow or inadequate notifications to consumer, and faulty approaches to addressing safety issues and improper actions by dealers were not in compliance with federal law and regulations;

In July 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration imposed a $105 million fine on Chrysler in connection with its handling of the previous 23 recalls affecting more than 11 million vehicles. The NHTSA penalties were tied to violations in an array of areas, including misleading regulators, inadequate repairs, and failure to alert affected car owners in a timely manner. The penalty caused Chrysler stock to drop 5% in July 2015.

3. as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ statements about Chrysler’s business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of defendants’ acts and omissions, the sharp decline in the market value of Chrysler securities caused plaintiffs to suffer significant losses and damages.