WILMINGTON, Del.--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
“certain issues with respect to the Company’s marketing of the System and the Company’s compliance with FDA Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) regulations, among other matters.”
- Do you, or did you, own shares of Atossa Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ CM: ATOS)?
- Did you purchase your shares before November 8, 2012, or between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in Atossa Genetics, Inc.?
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Atossa Genetics, Inc. (“Atossa” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ CM: ATOS) between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Atossa during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Atossa, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/atossa-genetics-inc-atos.
Atossa is a healthcare company focused on the prevention of breast cancer through the commercialization of diagnostic medical devices and laboratory developed tests that can detect precursors to breast cancer, and through the research, development, and ultimate commercialization of treatments for pre-cancerous lesions and ductal carcinoma in situ, or DCIS. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the Company was required, but failed, to submit an additional 510(k) notification to obtain necessary U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) clearance as it made material changes to the Nipple Aspirate Fluid specimen collection process; (2) the Company improperly marketed these devices by using certain promotional claims to market the ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and Mammary Aspirate Specimen Cytology Test (“MASCT”) device; (3) the Company was in violation of FDA Good Manufacturing Practices regulations; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Atossa’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, on February 25, 2013, the Company disclosed that it had received a warning letter from the FDA regarding its MASCT System and MASCT System Collection Test (together, the “System”). Specifically, in the warning letter, the FDA alleged that “the Company changed the System in a manner that requires submission of an additional 501(k) notification to the FDA” and the letter also raised “certain issues with respect to the Company’s marketing of the System and the Company’s compliance with FDA Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) regulations, among other matters.” Then, on October 4, 2013, after the market closed, the Company announced “a voluntary recall to remove the ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and the MASCT device from the market” after receiving a warning letter from the FDA.
On this news, shares in Atossa dropped more than 46%, closing at $2.85 per share on October 7, 2013, on unusually heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 9, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.