Lawsuit Overview
September 2, 2020 - A second amended complaint was filed.
February 28, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
September 13, 2020 - An investor in shares of Viewray Inc (NASDAQ: VRAY) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Viewray Inc in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between March 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019.
Oakwood Village, OH based ViewRay, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets MRIdian, the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiation therapy system to image and treat cancer patients simultaneously.
On May 2, 2019, ViewRay, Inc. announced financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2019. The Company reported a loss of $0.34 per share while analysts were expecting a per share loss of $0.22.
Then, on August 8, 2019, ViewRay, Inc.announced financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2019. ViewRay reported a quarterly loss of $0.32 per share versus analyst estimates of a loss of $0.23. Shares of Viewray Inc (NASDAQ: VRAY) declined from $8.51 per share on August 5, 2019 to as low as $2.76 per share on August 9, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Viewray Inc (NASDAQ: VRAY) common shares between March 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between March 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019, that the demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches first announced in November 2019 that could make purchases of new ViewRay systems less profitable for customers, that the Company’s reported backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported backlog, and that that as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about ViewRay’s business metrics and financial prospects during the Class Period were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.