Nektar Theraputics named in class action lawsuit for securities fraud

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Nektar securities between November 11, 2017 through October 2, 2018 (“class Period”) seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws.

The Company’s Common Stock is listed and traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (“NASDAQ”) under the ticker symbol “NKTR”. If you purchased during the Class Period wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 31, 2018.

Nektar is a research-based bio pharmaceutical company that discovers and develops innovative medicines in areas of high unmet medical need. Nektar’s research and development pipeline of new investigational drugs includes treatments for cancer, autoimmune disease and chronic pain. Nektar purports to leverage its proprietary and proven chemistry platform to discover and design new drug candidates. These drug candidates utilize the Company’s advanced polymer conjugate technology platforms, which are designed to enable the development of new molecular entities that target known mechanisms of action.

NKTR-214, is the Company’s lead immune-oncology (“I-O”) candidate, is a biologic with biased signaling through one of the IL-2 receptor sub units (CD 122) that can stimulate proliferation and growth of tumor-killing immune cells in the tumor micro-environment and increase expression of PD-1 on these immune cells.

As alleged, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) prior studies which attempted to pegylate IL-2 failed; (ii) NKTR-214’s extended half-life was unlikely to result in efficacy and created additional high-dosing safety concerns; (iii) NKTR-214 was less effective than IL-2 alone; (iv) the combination of NKTR-214 with nivolumab has not yet demonstrated significant positive results; and (v) as a result, Nektar’s public statements as set forth above were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 1, 2018, Plainview LLC published a report entitled “NKTR-214: Pegging the Value at Zero”. The report addressed the efficacy of Nektar’s lead clinical-stage drug NKTR-214, which the Company has touted as “a promising treatment for cancer, particularly in combination with checkpoint inhibitors.” The Plainview report stated that “Nektar hypothesized that IL- 2 [a naturally occurring cytokine] could be improved by adding polyethylene glycol molecules to it (pegylating it) to extend the half-life and block interaction with” a specific receptor, but that “[u]nfortunately, the anticipated benefits did not materialize and pegylation has proved to be a drag on efficacy.” The Plainview report asserted that the core concept of Nektar’s plan to develop NKTR-214 into “a new universal cancer treatment” “has never worked in practice”, and further asserted that Nektar’s decision to only disclose certain trial results represented “an unprecedented level of data opacity.”

Following publication of the Plainview report, Nektar’s stock price fell $5.63 per share, or 9.24%, over the following two trading sessions, closing at $55.33 per share on October 2, 2018.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

COMPLAINT

Champion Pet Foods named in class action lawsuit for failure to disclose presence of heavy metals in pet food

 

Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendants Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP for their negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of heavy metals and toxins in their pet food sold throughout the United States.

 

According to the complaint, Defendants have created a niche in the pet food market by making biologically appropriate’ pet food- as close to what animals would eat in nature as possible- and producing it using fresh, natural ingredients. Yet nowhere in the labeling, advertising, statements, warranties, and/or packaging do Defendants disclose that the Contaminated Pet Foods (defined herein) contain levels of arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium and/or BISPHENOL A (“BPA”) — all known to pose health risks to humans and animals, including dogs.

COMPLAINT

Honda named in class action lawsuit alleging defect in 1.5-liter direct injection turbocharged engines

 

This consumer class action arises from a latent defect found in model year 2015 – through 2018 Honda Civic, CR-V, and Accord vehicles with 1.5-liter direct injection turbocharged engines.

As alleged, the engines in these vehicles suffer from an inherent latent defect that results in the engine oil becoming diluted with gasoline, which is known as fuel dilution. Due to the defect, gasoline gets into the crankcase, diluting the oil and reducing the oil’s ability to protect and lubricate the engine, leading to premature engine wear, potential engine damage and ultimately potential engine failure. In addition, fuel dilution can lead to gasoline fumes seeping in to the passenger compartment.

According to the complaint, under normal circumstances, un-combusted gasoline accumulates in the lubricant oil pan and evaporates under heat from the engine that then ends up back in the engine combustion chamber as fuel. In the vehicles at issue, however, owners are reporting that un-combusted gasoline is diluting the engine oil which manifests in a strong smell of gasoline inside the cabin, in the short term, and gasoline in the oil that may lead to engine damage in the long term. Some drivers have reported that the car’s check-engine light has switched on as result.

Despite notice and knowledge of the defect from the numerous complaints it has received, information received from dealers, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) complaints, and their own internal records, including pre-sale durability testing, Honda has not recalled and/or offered an adequate engine repair to the Class Vehicles, offered their customers suitable repairs or replacements free of charge, or offered to reimburse their customers who have incurred out-of-pocket expenses to repair the defect.

COMPLAINT

Coca-Cola sued over advertising of Hansen’s Natural sodas

 

Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells a line of products in the “alternative” soda beverage category, which Defendant prominently labels and sells as “Hansen’s Natural” sodas Defendant uses the “natural” branding strategy and labeling claim as the primary feature differentiating Hansen’s Natural Sodas from other soda products in the marketplace. However, Defendant’s advertising and marketing is false, deceptive and misleading because each Hansen’s Natural Soda product contains one or more artificial and/or synthetic, non-natural ingredients, including Ascorbic Acid, Citric Acid, and Caramel Color.

 

COMPLAINT

National Beverage Corp  makers of LaCroix Sparkling Waters named in class action lawsuit over false advertising of product as natural

 

This is a class action against National Beverage Corp. d/b/a LaCroix Sparkling Waters to stop their practice of mislabeling their signature product, LaCroix Water, as “all-natural.” LaCroix Water is manufactured using non-natural flavorings and synthetic compounds, and Defendant continues to mislead consumers into believing that their product is natural when it is not.

According to the complaint, the water contains ethyl butanoate, Iimonene, linalool and linalool propionate — chemical compounds that are synthetically created and added to consumable goods to make those goods taste or smell a certain way.

COMPLAINT

GM named in class action lawsuit over excessive oil consumption in Chevrolet Equinox vehicles

 

This class action pertains to Model Year 2010-2017 Chevrolet Equinox vehicles with 2.4-liter engines. These engines were denominated within GM as the “LAF” and “LEA” engines (also referred to herein as the “EcoTech 2.4L” engine).

 

As alleged, GM knew that these vehicles contained one or more design and/or manufacturing defects that cause them to be unable to properly utilize the engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and/or consume abnormally high amounts of oil (the “Oil Consumption Defect”).

The primary cause of the Oil Consumption Defect was the composition and construction of faulty piston rings, including both “compression” and “oil” rings. In particular, the composition of compression rings did not permit these rings to withstand the higher compression ratios of the LAF and LEA engines, in that the coating would fail and cause premature ring wear, and that these rings were too thin. Additionally, GM installed low-tension oil rings in these engines that do not maintain sufficient tension to keep oil in the crank case within design specifications.

Included in the EcoTec 2.4L engines, which further contributes to the Oil Consumption Defect, are spray jets that spray oil onto the piston skirt and cylinder wall. This was not common on other engines with adequate piston rings. This oil spray overloads and fouls the defective piston rings, triggering oil to migrate past the piston rings into other places in the engine. This excess oil either burns off or accumulates as a carbon buildup on the combustion chamber’s surfaces.

The complaint also alleges that the EcoTec 2.4L engine includes a flawed Positive Crankcase Ventilation system that vacuums oil from the valve train into the intake system, where it is ultimately burned in the combustion chambers.

The engine oil defect can cause a myriad of issues creating a safety issue including:

  • Sudden engine shutoff, resulting in loss of power, loss of braking, and inability to adequately maneuver in high-speed or congested driving situations;
  • Driver distraction due to sudden and unexpected engine shutoff, caused by sudden loss of power, illumination of warning lights and sounds, and loss or diminution of power brake assist;
  • Loss of maneuverability in high-speed or congested driving conditions due to unexpected loss of engine power—even when the engine does not shut off;

COMPLAINT

Starbucks named in class action over false and misleading advertising of sour gummy candies

 

According to the complaint, the Starbucks private-label sour gummy candy assortment claims that the package contains Apple, Watermelon, Tangerine, and Lemon-flavored sour candies. The label does not disclose, however, that the Product contains artificial flavors in the form of fumaric acid which is a synthetic petrochemical added to the Products to create the overall “sour” flavor and to simulate and reinforce the Product’s four characteristic fruit flavors.

As alleged, failure to disclose the existence of this artificial flavor violates the law.

 

Arizona Beverage Company named in class action lawsuit for false advertising

 

 

 

The complaint brought on behalf a nationwide class of consumers claims the Defendant falsely advertises is products as having “no preservatives” but in truth contains a number of preservatives such as citric and ascorbic acids which render the advertising claim false and misleading.

As alleged, conscious of consumers’ increased interest in more nutritious beverages free of additives and willingness to pay more for products perceived to meet this preference, Defendant misleadingly, illegally, and deceptively seeks to capitalize on these consumer health trends.

Products include

Arizona Iced Tea with Lemon Flavor (citric acid and ascorbic acid in the bottle; citric acid only in the can).

Arizona Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Arnold Palmer Lite Half Iced Tea Half Lemonade (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Peach Zero Calorie Iced Tea (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Diet Peach Iced tea (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Raspberry Half Iced Tea Half Lemonade (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Cranberry Iced Tea (citric acid).

Arizona Grapeade (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Half Iced Tea Half Lemonade (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Peach Iced Tea (citric acid).

Arizona Raspberry Iced Tea (citric acid).

Arizona Energy Drink Extreme Performance Fruit Punch (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Energy Drink Extreme Performance (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Energy Drink Low Carb Performance (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Real Brewed Sweet Tea (citric acid).

Arizona Arnold Palmer Zero Half Iced Tea Half Lemonade (citric acid).

Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Fruit Punch Fruit Juice (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

Arizona Mucho Mango Juice (citric acid and ascorbic acid).

 

Neurobrands named in a class action lawsuit over falsely claiming products are flavored only with natural ingredients.

 

Neurobrands manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets and sells a variety of purportedly natural fruit flavored products known as the Neuro beverage products, including, neuroSONIC Energy Refreshed superfruit infusion, neuroBLISS white raspberry, and the neuroPROTEIN watermelon mint products (collectively, the “Products”).

As alleged, the labeling of the Products is false and misleading. Specifically, the Products are labeled as if they are flavored only with natural ingredients when they in fact contain an undisclosed artificial flavor, malic acid, in violation of state and federal law.

The complaint claims that Defendant’s packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium, all-natural product with only natural flavoring ingredients instead of a product that contains artificial chemicals and that is artificially flavored.

 

COMPLAINT

 

Barilla named in class action lawsuit over claims its products are fee of preservatives

 

The complaint on behalf of a nation-wide class of consumers claims Barilla falsely advertises certain products as having “No Preservatives” despite the fact that they contain citric acid which is being used as a preservative.

As claimed, Defendant misleadingly, illegally, and deceptively seek to capitalize on consumers’ increased interest in more nutritious foods free of additives and willingness to pay more for products perceived to meet this preference.

Products include

Barilla® Marinara Sauce

Barilla® Tomato Basil Sauce

Barilla® Mushroom Sauce

Barilla® Spicy Marinara Sauce

Barilla® Roasted Garlic Sauce

Barilla® Sweet Peppers Sauce

Barilla® Traditional Sauce

Barilla® Chunky Traditional Sauce

Barilla® Tuscan Herb Sauce

COMPLAINT