Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds sellers of the stock of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (NASDAQ: SVA) between April 11, 2016 and February 22, 2019, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the October 17, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline in the lawsuit against 1Globe Capital LLC and certain of its officers.
SO WHAT: If you sold Sinovac securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Sinovac class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8179 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 17, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants’ intentionally false statements and omissions concerning the true nature of 1Globe, a family investment office that is owned and controlled by defendant Jiaqiang Li, and Li’s ownership of Sinovac stock caused the exchange, under the Rights Agreement of March 28, 2016 which included a “poison pill” limiting the number of Sinovac shares that a shareholder could acquire, to be delayed by several years. If Li had fully disclosed his ownership of Sinovac stock, as he was required to do under Section 13(d), it would have been clear that the Rights Agreement was triggered by May 2016, at the latest. While Sinovac knew enough information starting in 2016, largely based on private correspondence, to determine that 1Globe and Li triggered the Rights Agreement, defendants hid the full extent of their ownership of Sinovac stock and their agreements in connection with the battle for control of the Company. Defendants therefore also tortiously interfered with Sinovac’s contractual obligations to its shareholders under the Rights Agreement. Also according to the lawsuit, if 1Globe’s and Li’s actions were disclosed publicly, as they were required to be under Section 13(d), shareholders’ rights would have been exercisable based on that public disclosure, and an exchange would have occurred based on that date. By misrepresenting the true nature of their ownership of Sinovac stock, defendants caused that date to be delayed almost three years, until February 22, 2019, resulting in the class losing their rights to acquire additional shares of Sinovac stock for all of their shares that they sold in the interim. While Sinovac should have implemented the Rights Agreement in 2016 based on the information available to it at the time, 1Globe and Li exacerbated the problem by violating their disclosure obligations under Section 13(d). Moreover, defendants caused the value of Sinovac stock to be artificially depressed by preventing the public from accounting for the value of defendants’ stake in Sinovac and their efforts to take control of the Company.
