Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
- Do you, or did you, own shares of BIOLASE, Inc. (NASDAQ CM: BIOL )?
- Did you purchase your shares before January 7, 2013, or between January 7, 2013 and August 12, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in BIOLASE, Inc.?
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
, including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of BIOLASE, Inc. (“BIOLASE” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ CM:
) between January 7, 2013 and August 12, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of BIOLASE during the Class Period and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire
or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to
, or at:
BIOLASE is a biomedical company operating in one reportable business segment that develops, manufactures, and markets proprietary lasers in dentistry and medicine and also markets and distributes two-dimensional (“2-D”) and three-dimensional (“3-D”) digital imaging equipment and CAD/CAM intra-oral scanners; products that are focused on technologies that advance the practice of dentistry and medicine. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) contrary to Defendants’ statements during the Class Period that dental lasers were “becom[ing] the standard of care in dental practices worldwide” and feeding demand for BIOLASE’s product offerings, in reality, because there is little evidence demonstrating the use of dental lasers (instead of drills) provides long-term benefits to teeth, and because both children and adults can have cavities filled without the numbing injections BIOLASE claims WaterLase products preclude, only 5% of dental offices use dental lasers and dentists were hesitant to adopt dental lasers – especially BIOLASE’s – because of their high costs; (2) due to the relatively high costs associated with its dental lasers offerings, BIOLASE’s efforts to switch to a direct sales model in the U.S. during the Class Period were failing; (3) contrary to Defendants’ Class Period statements that they did “not expect to be troubled with the multitude of extraneous issues that [BIOLASE] faced throughout [its] challenging turnaround, including exiting [its] exclusive global distribution relationship with Henry Schein,” the high debt burden the Company assumed to exit the Henry Schein arrangement, coupled with the onerous terms of the Comerica lines of credit, were financially handicapping the Company; and (4) contrary to Defendants’ Class Period statements that “the cash generated from operations and the borrowings available under the lines of credit with Comerica Bank [would] be sufficient to fund [BIOLASE’s] working capital requirements for 2013,” there was no cash being generated from operations and the Company was in default of the Comerica lines of credit. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.