Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of MiMedx Group, Inc. (NASDAQ CM: MDXG )?
- Did you purchase your shares before March 7, 2013, or between March 7, 2013 and September 4, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in MiMedx Group, Inc.?
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 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 Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of MiMedx Group, Inc. (“MiMedx” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ CM: MDXG) between March 7, 2013 and September 4, 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 MiMedx during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold MiMedx, 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 email@example.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/mimedx-group-inc-mdxg.
MiMedx is an integrated developer, manufacturer and marketer of patent protected regenerative biomaterial products and allografts processed from human amniotic membrane. 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: (a) MiMedx did not possess the necessary licensing to make certain of its products; (b) the Company was manufacturing certain of its products unlawfully and in violation of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) rules and regulations; (c) at all relevant times, MiMedx’s revenues from these products were substantially and materially threatened due to the Company’s lack of licensure; (d) because a portion of its revenues were subject to termination, MiMedx’s revenue guidance issued during the Class Period lacked a reasonable basis when made; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and expected earnings were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.