Dynavax Shareholder Alert: Briscoe Law And Powers Taylor Investigate Possible Breaches Of Fiduciary Duty By Officers And Directors
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Willie
Briscoe, founder of
Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the securities litigation firm of
Taylor, LLP announce that a federal class action...
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 a federal class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynavax Technologies Corporation (“Dynavax” or “Company”) (Nasdaq: DVAX). The firms are investigating additional legal claims against the officers and directors of Dynavax during the period of April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013 (the “Class Period”). If you are an affected investor and you want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, (214) 239-4568, or via email at WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com, or Zachary Groover at Powers Taylor, LLP, toll free (877) 728-9607, via email at email@example.com. There is no cost or fee to you. In a recently filed federal class action complaint, Dynavax and certain of its officers and directors were charged with violating certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that among other things, defendants’ misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the clinical trial for HEPLISAV was flawed since the trial demographics did not represent the population of the United States; (b) the trial did not have a one-year safety follow-up, which is typically required for vaccines; (c) the trial lacked information concerning concomitant use with other vaccines; (d) given the novel adjuvant that the HEPLISAV vaccine contains, the clinical trial for HEPLISAV was flawed because the safety database size was inadequate to rule out rare adverse autoimmune events; (e) Dynavax failed to provide the FDA with sufficient data concerning its manufacturing processes and controls for HEPLISAV on its BLA; and (f) as a result of the above, the Company’s positive statements about the Company’s outlook, including the statements about its launch of HEPLISAV in 2013, were materially false or misleading. According to the complaint, when the true facts were revealed, the Company’s shares dropped 73% from their Class Period high.