49.62 +0.71 (1.45%)
Pre-market: 5:09AM EST
|Bid||0.00 x 1800|
|Ask||0.00 x 3200|
|Day's range||48.75 - 49.87|
|52-week range||36.15 - 64.94|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||0.17|
|PE ratio (TTM)||40.16|
|Forward dividend & yield||1.40 (2.86%)|
|Ex-dividend date||25 Feb 2021|
|1y target est||62.35|
The African Union will pay three times more for Russia’s Sputnik V jab than it is paying for the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Novavax vaccines, according to people familiar with the procurement process. The $9.75 price per dose for 300m shots of the Russian vaccine, developed by the state-run Gamaleya Institute, undermines Moscow’s argument that it is offering affordable jabs to countries priced out of deals with western pharmaceutical groups. “Africa is a key market for Sputnik V,” said the Russian Direct Investment Fund, a Kremlin-run wealth fund overseeing Sputnik V’s foreign sales.
EU leaders vented frustration over sluggish deliveries of coronavirus vaccines and manufacturing delays as anxiety rises over the rapid spread of new variants. The heads of state and government were meeting for a video summit aimed at reviewing the EU’s immunisation campaign, after weeks of complaints that the bloc is lagging the US and UK. While Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission president, came in for criticism over the procurement plan earlier this year, many leaders were supportive of her on Thursday, focusing their fire on big pharma companies’ ability to live up to their contractual commitments, officials said.
NEW YORK, Feb. 24, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT), CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLSK), 9F, Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU), and AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ: AZN). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT) Class Period: December 21, 2020 to January 8, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021 Bit Digital is a holding company that purports to engage in the bitcoin mining business through its wholly owned subsidiaries in U.S. and Hong Kong. On January 11, 2021, J Capital Research issued a research report alleging, among other things, that Bit Digital operates “a fake crypto currency business” “designed to steal funds from investors.” Though the Company claims “it was operating 22,869 bitcoin miners in China,” J Capital alleged that “is simply not possible” and stated that “[w]e verified with local governments supposedly hosting the BTBT mining operation that there are no bitcoin miners there.” On this news, Bit Digital’s stock price fell $6.27 per share, or 25%, to close at $18.76 per share on January 11, 2021. The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Bit Digital overstated the extent of its a bitcoin mining operation; and (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the Bit Digital class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/BTBT CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLSK) Class Period: December 31, 2020 to January 14, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021 CleanSpark provides advanced software and controls technology solutions, including end-to-end microgrid energy modeling, energy market communications, and energy management solutions. On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report alleging, among other things, that CleanSpark has “fabricated key elements of its business, including purported customers and contracts” and that it is “rife with undisclosed related party transactions.” On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.63, or 9%, to close at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby damaging investors. The stock continued to decline the next trading session by $4.56, or 13%, to close at $31.15 per share on January 15, 2021. The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that several of the Company’s recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the CleanSpark class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CLSK 9F, Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU) Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering conducted on or about August 14, 2019 (the “IPO” or “Offering”); or between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020 (the “Class Period”) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021 In August 2019, defendants held the IPO, selling approximately 8.9 million American depositary shares (“ADSs”) to the investing public at $9.50 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement By the commencement of this action, the Company’s shares trade significantly below the IPO price. The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, alleges that the materials supporting the Offering, and defendants throughout the Class Period, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the purported value and benefits of the Company’s financial institution partners and its tri-party cooperation business model did not in fact exist and/or were materially overstated, given that 9F and Property and Casualty Company Limited (“PICC”) had been engaged in an ongoing contractual dispute regarding payment of service fees under the Cooperation Agreement; (2) the collectability of service fees owed to 9F by PICC under the Cooperation Agreement was in doubt and at serious risk of non-payment; (3) there was a significant risk that PICC would no longer provide credit insurance and guarantee protection to investors and institutional funding partners; (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s platform, business model, reputation and financial results had been materially impaired; and (5) as a result, defendants’ statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the 9F class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/JFU AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ: AZN) Class Period: May 21, 2020 to November 20, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021 AstraZeneca is one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world and was one of the early front-runners in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In April 2020, the Company partnered with Oxford University to develop a potential recombinant adenovirus vaccine for the virus, later dubbed AZD1222. On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca issued a release announcing the results of an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for AZD1222. The announcement immediately began to raise questions among analysts and industry experts. AstraZeneca disclosed that the interim analysis involved two smaller scale trials in disparate locales (the United Kingdom and Brazil) that, for unexplained reasons, employed two different dosing regimens. One clinical trial provided patients a half dose of AZD1222 followed by a full dose, while the other trial provided two full doses. Counterintuitively, AstraZeneca claimed that the half dosing regimen was substantially more effective at preventing COVID-19 at 90% efficacy than the full dosing regimen, which had achieved just 62% efficacy. In the days that followed, additional revelations were made regarding problems with AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 clinical trials. For example, the differing dosing regimens were revealed to be due to a manufacturing error rather than trial design. Also, the half-strength dose had not been tested in people over the age of 55 – despite the fact that this population was the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Moreover, certain trial participants received their second dose later than originally planned. U.S. regulators stated that if AstraZeneca could not clearly explain the discrepancies in its trial results, the results would most likely not be sufficient for approval for commercial sale in the United States. As negative news reports continued to reveal previously undisclosed problems and flaws in AstraZeneca’s clinical trials for AZD1222, the price of AstraZeneca ADSs fell to $52.60 by market close on November 25, 2020, a 5% decline over three trading days in response to adverse news. The complaint, filed on July 26, 2021, alleges that defendants misrepresented facts regarding the Company’s ongoing AZD1222 clinical trials and concealed problems that had arisen in the trials, including a dosing error which had been discovered early on by the Company but not disclosed to investors. For more information on the AstraZeneca class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/AZN About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information:Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq.Marion Passmore, Esq.(212) email@example.com