Nov. 27, 2013
/PRNewswire/ -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Unilife Corporation ("Unilife" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UNIS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Middle District of
, and docketed under 13-cv-02690, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Unilife between
July 13, 2011
September 9, 2013
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Unilife securities during the Class Period, you have until
December 31, 2013
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
. To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
Unilife designs and manufactures medical devices. The Company produces retractable syringes.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Unifill syringes failed to comply with the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") validation processes (2) the Company's Quality Management System failed to comply with FDA regulations; (3) the Company purposefully increased its purchases of Unifill component parts to make suppliers believe that Unilife was producing at increased volumes despite the fact that there was no customer demand or manufacturing capacity to support such purchases; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.