Lawsuit Overview
January 15, 2021 - The case was voluntarily dismissed.
August 19, 2020 - An investor in shares of STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by STAAR Surgical Company in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between February 26, 2020 and August 10 2020.
Lake Forest, CA based STAAR Surgical Company, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells implantable lenses for the eye, and delivery systems to deliver the lenses into the eye. STAAR Surgical Company reported that its annual Total Revenue increased from $123.95 million in 2018 to $150.18 million in 2019, and that its Net Income increased from $4.96 million in 2018 to $14.04 million in 2019.
On August 11, 2020, a report was published calling into STAAR’s purported success in China. The report accused STAAR Surgical Company of overstating its sales in China by at least one-third (or $21.6 million), “meaning all of the company’s $14 mln in 2019 profit is fake.” The report is allegedly based on “over 75 interviews”, as well as visits to STAAR Surgical Company locations in China and Switzerland. In particular, the report concluded that AIER’s financial statements indicate that it bought only about half as many lenses as STAAR Surgical Company reported. Shares of STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA) declined from $62.25 per share on July 2, 2020 to $46.01 per share on August 14, 2020.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA) common shares between February 26, 2020 and August 10, 2020, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between February 26, 2020 and August 10 2020, the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and that as a result of the foregoing, (4) defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.