According to the lawsuit, defendants provided investors with material information concerning the failed inspection of Viatris’ Indore, India facility. Defendants’ statements, albeit made months after the initial inspection and defendants’ initiation of remediation efforts included, among other things, the disclosure of the FDA’s issuance of a warning letter and import alert which would prevent Viatris from shipping eleven products from the Indore facility, though four of such were exempt from the limitations (the “Warning Letter”). Defendants routinely referred to the impact of the Warning Letter as a mere “minor headwind” for Viatris.
Further, defendants provided these disclosures to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state impact of the Warning Letter on Viatris’ financials. Notably, defendants did not disclose precisely when the inspection occurred, how long the remediation efforts had been implemented, or the financial impact of the existing and continued remediation efforts. Defendants further notably failed to disclose which products were subject to the FDA Warning Letter, which products were subject to exemptions, and the significance of the restricted products with respect to Viatris’ existing financials and future projections, and for which Viatris believed it would obtain exemptions. Such statements, absent these material facts, caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Viatris’ securities at artificially inflated prices.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
