Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against 9F, AstraZeneca, iRhythm Technologies, and Tyson Foods and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

New York, New York, UNITED STATES

NEW YORK, Feb. 10, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of 9F, Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU), AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ: AZN), iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC), and Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.

9F, Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU)

Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering conducted on or about August 14, 2019 (the “IPO” or “Offering”); or between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020 (the “Class Period”)

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021

In August 2019, defendants held the IPO, selling approximately 8.9 million American depositary shares (“ADSs”) to the investing public at $9.50 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement

By the commencement of this action, the Company’s shares trade significantly below the IPO price.

The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, alleges that the materials supporting the Offering, and defendants throughout the Class Period, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the purported value and benefits of the Company’s financial institution partners and its tri-party cooperation business model did not in fact exist and/or were materially overstated, given that 9F and Property and Casualty Company Limited (“PICC”) had been engaged in an ongoing contractual dispute regarding payment of service fees under the Cooperation Agreement; (2) the collectability of service fees owed to 9F by PICC under the Cooperation Agreement was in doubt and at serious risk of non-payment; (3) there was a significant risk that PICC would no longer provide credit insurance and guarantee protection to investors and institutional funding partners; (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s platform, business model, reputation and financial results had been materially impaired; and (5) as a result, defendants’ statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

For more information on the 9F class action go to:

AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ: AZN)

Class Period: May 21, 2020 to November 20, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021

AstraZeneca is one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world and was one of the early front-runners in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In April 2020, the Company partnered with Oxford University to develop a potential recombinant adenovirus vaccine for the virus, later dubbed AZD1222.

On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca issued a release announcing the results of an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for AZD1222. The announcement immediately began to raise questions among analysts and industry experts. AstraZeneca disclosed that the interim analysis involved two smaller scale trials in disparate locales (the United Kingdom and Brazil) that, for unexplained reasons, employed two different dosing regimens. One clinical trial provided patients a half dose of AZD1222 followed by a full dose, while the other trial provided two full doses. Counterintuitively, AstraZeneca claimed that the half dosing regimen was substantially more effective at preventing COVID-19 at 90% efficacy than the full dosing regimen, which had achieved just 62% efficacy.

In the days that followed, additional revelations were made regarding problems with AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 clinical trials. For example, the differing dosing regimens were revealed to be due to a manufacturing error rather than trial design. Also, the half-strength dose had not been tested in people over the age of 55 – despite the fact that this population was the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Moreover, certain trial participants received their second dose later than originally planned. U.S. regulators stated that if AstraZeneca could not clearly explain the discrepancies in its trial results, the results would most likely not be sufficient for approval for commercial sale in the United States.

As negative news reports continued to reveal previously undisclosed problems and flaws in AstraZeneca’s clinical trials for AZD1222, the price of AstraZeneca ADSs fell to $52.60 by market close on November 25, 2020, a 5% decline over three trading days in response to adverse news.

The complaint, filed on July 26, 2021, alleges that defendants misrepresented facts regarding the Company’s ongoing AZD1222 clinical trials and concealed problems that had arisen in the trials, including a dosing error which had been discovered early on by the Company but not disclosed to investors.

For more information on the AstraZeneca class action go to:

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC)

Class Period: August 4, 2020 to January 28, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021

iRhythm offers a portfolio of ambulatory cardiac monitoring services on its platform, called the Zio service. iRhythm receives revenue for its Zio service primarily from third-party payors, which include commercial payors and government agencies, such as the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”). Reimbursement from the CMS and other third-party payors is therefore critical to the Company’s business.

On January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor Novitas Solutions published actual reimbursement rates under the CMS’ 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A Baird analyst commented that these rates were “way lower than” the former codes, citing one example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around $311, but was now receiving just $42.68.

On this news, the price of iRhythm common stock closed at $168.42, down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of $251.00. The 33% drop represents a one-day loss in market capitalization of approximately $2.4 billion.

The complaint, filed on February 1, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period and in violation of the Exchange Act, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) iRhythm’s business would suffer as a result of the CMS’ rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in the Company’s business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the iRhythm class action go to:

Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN)

Class Period: March 13, 2020 to December 15, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 5, 2021

On December 15, 2020, New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer (“Comptroller Stringer”) called on the SEC to open an investigation into Tyson. In his letter to the SEC, Comptroller Stringer described Tyson’s various failures to carry out its stated coronavirus protection policies.

On this news, the price of Tyson shares fell $1.78 per share, or 2.5%, to close at $68.25 per share on December 15, 2020.

The complaint, filed on February 2, 2021, alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tyson knew, or should have known, that the highly contagious coronavirus was spreading throughout the globe; (2) Tyson did not in fact have sufficient safety protocols to protect its employees in its facilities; (3) as a result, Tyson employees contracted and spread the coronavirus within the facilities; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Tyson would face negative impact to its production, including complete shutdowns of certain facilities; (5) due to the failure to protect its employees, Tyson would suffer financial harm related to its lowered production; and (6) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

For more information on the Tyson class action go to:

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648