Lawsuit Overview
April 19, 2021 - An amended consolidated complaint was filed.
December 17, 2020 - An investor in shares of Sona Nanotech Inc. (OTC: SNANF) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Sona Nanotech Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between July 2, 2020 and November 25, 2020.
Canada based Sona Nanotech Inc., nanotechnology life sciences company, manufactures gold nanorod products for diagnostic test.
On October 29, 2020, Sona Nanotech Inc. announced that the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) denied the Company's request for an emergency use authorization for the marketing of its rapid COVID-19 antigen test in the United States. Shares of Sona Nanotech Inc. (OTC: SNANF) declined from $8.34 per share on October 9, 2020, to as low as $0.60 per share on November 25, 2020.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Sona Nanotech Inc. (OTC: SNANF) common shares between July 2, 2020 and November 25, 2020, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between July 2, 2020 and November 25, 2020, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that it was unreasonable for Sona to represent that it could receive results from field studies of its COVID-19 antigen test within a month, that Sona's positive statements about its COVID-19 antigen test were unfounded as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) would deprioritize emergency use authorization approval of Sona's antigen test finding it did not meet the public health need criterion, that it was unreasonable for Sona to believe that data gathered over such a short period of time would be sufficient for approval of its antigen test by either the FDA or Health Canada, that Sona would have to withdraw its submission for Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for the marketing of its COVID-19 antigen test as it lacked sufficient clinical data to support approval, and that as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times