MAKO Surgical Shareholder Alert: The Briscoe Law Firm And Powers Taylor, LLP Investigate Possible Breaches Of Fiduciary Duty By The Officers And Directors Of MAKO Surgical Corp.
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Briscoe, founder of
Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the securities litigation firm of
Taylor, LLP announce that the firms are...
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor, LLP announce that the firms are investigating legal claims against the officers and Board of Directors of MAKO Surgical Corp. (“MAKO”) (NASDAQ: MAKO) related to potential securities violations between January 1, 2012 and May 7, 2012 (the “Class Period”). “Recent revelations about alleged improper business practices and procedures regarding key aspects of the company’s business and other misleading financial statements have prompted the firms to investigate possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state law by MAKO officers and directors. Based on our investigation, we are prepared to pursue litigation to preserve the company and the value of MAKO stock for all shareholders,” said shareholder rights attorney Willie Briscoe. If you are an affected investor and you want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the action, contact Patrick Powers at Powers Taylor, LLP, toll free (877) 728-9607, via e-mail at email@example.com, or Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, (214) 706-9314, or via email at WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com. There is no cost or fee to you. In a recently filed federal class action complaint, MAKO and certain of its officers and directors were charged with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants’ issued materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period because defendants knew that: (a) MAKO was poised to suffer a wider first quarter loss as it was experiencing higher costs and slower sales of its RIO systems; (b) utilization rates of MAKO’s RIO systems were dropping; (c) MAKO’s 2012 outlook provided at the start of the Class Period lacked a reasonable basis when made; and (d) based on the above, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company or its outlook. As a result, it is claimed that MAKO traded at artificially high prices during the Class Period, and when defendants revealed MAKO’s true financial condition and future business prospects, the price of MAKO common stock fell more than 40% from its Class Period high.