Lawsuit Overview
January 24, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
July 30, 2019 - An investor in shares of Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRS) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between May 8, 2018 and June 20, 2019.
Wayne, PA based Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various therapies for dermatological and immuno-inflammatory diseases in the United States. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $1.68 million in 2017 to $10.09 million in 2018.
On June 20, 2019, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) stated that an advertisement for Aclaris’s hydrogen peroxide topical solution, Eskata, “makes false or misleading claims” regarding the product’s risk and efficacy. Specifically, “a direct-to-consumer video of an interview featuring a paid Aclaris spokesperson” was “especially concerning from a public health perspective because it fails to include information regarding the serious risks associated with Eskata, which bears warnings and precautions related to the risks of serious eye disorders . . . in the case of exposure to the eye and severe skin reactions including scarring.” Shares of Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRS) declined from $32.67 per share in April 2017 to as low as $1.65 per share on July 29, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRS) common shares between May 8, 2018 and June 20, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between May 8, 2018 and June 20, 2019, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company’s advertising materials minimized the risks and overstated the efficacy of ESKATA to generate sales, that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny, and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.