NEW YORK, June 24, 2022 (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 Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AXSM), Pegasystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA), Humbl, Inc. (OTCMKTS: HMBL), and Okta, Inc. (NASDAQ: OKTA). 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.

Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AXSM)

Class Period: December 30, 2019 – April 22, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2022

Axsome is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the development of novel therapies for central nervous system disorders in the United States. The Company is developing, among other product candidates, AXS-07, a novel, oral, rapidly absorbed, multi-mechanistic, and investigational medicine for the acute treatment of migraine.

Axsome consistently touted AXS-07’s regulatory and commercial prospects in anticipation of the Company’s submission a New Drug Application (“NDA”) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for AXS-07 for the acute treatment of migraine (the “AXS-07 NDA”) based on the drug’s positive results in two Phase 3 trials. However, unbeknownst to investors, the Company’s preparation and eventual submission of the AXS-07 NDA was plagued with chemistry, manufacturing, and control (“CMC”) issues.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Axsome’s CMC practices were deficient with respect to AXS-07 and its manufacturing process; (ii) as a result, Axsome was unlikely to submit the AXS-07 NDA on its initially represented timeline; (iii) the foregoing CMC issues remained unresolved at the time that the FDA reviewed the AXS-07 NDA; (iv) accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the AXS-07 NDA; (v) as a result of all the foregoing, Axsome had overstated AXS-07’s regulatory and commercial prospects; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 5, 2020, Axsome issued a press release reporting the Company’s third quarter 2020 results. That press release disclosed that the Company “plans to submit the [AXS-07] NDA to the FDA in the first quarter of 2021, versus previous guidance of the fourth quarter of 2020, to allow for inclusion of supplemental manufacturing information to ensure a robust submission package.”

On this news, Axsome’s stock price fell $5.22 per share, or 6.99%, to close at $69.51 per share on November 5, 2020.

Then, on April 25, 2022, Axsome disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that, “[o]n April 22, 2022, Axsome . . . was informed by the [FDA] that [CMC] issues identified during the FDA’s review of the Company’s [NDA] for its AXS-07 product candidate for the acute treatment of migraine are unresolved.” That filing also disclosed that “[b]ased upon the time remaining in the NDA review cycle, the Company expects to receive a Complete Response Letter [(‘CRL’)] with respect to this NDA on or about the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of April 30, 2022.”

On this news, Axsome’s stock price fell $8.60 per share, or 21.99%, to close at $30.50 per share on April 25, 2022.

Finally, on May 2, 2022, Axsome announced that it received a CRL from the FDA regarding the AXS-07 NDA for the acute treatment of migraine. According to the Company, “[t]he principal reasons given in the CRL relate to [CMC] considerations” including “the need for additional CMC data pertaining to the drug product and manufacturing process.”

For more information on the Axsome class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/AXSM

Pegasystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA)

Class Period: May 29, 2020 – May 9, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 18, 2022

PEGA develops customer relationship management software. In its SEC filings during the Class Period, PEGA consistently informed investors that its internal “research and development organization is responsible for product architecture, core technology development, product testing, and quality assurance.” The Company also stated that it maintained a written Code of Conduct applicable to its board of directors and all employees “including our principal executive officer,” which included an express commitment: “Never [to] use illegal or questionable means to acquire a competitor’s trade secrets or other confidential information, such as . . . stealing, seeking confidential information from a new employee who recently worked for a competitor, or misrepresenting your identity in hopes of obtaining confidential information.”

On May 29, 2020, Appian Corporation (“Appian”), a principal competitor of PEGA, filed a civil complaint in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Virginia against PEGA and fan employee of a government contractor using Appian software, alleging claims for trade secret misappropriation, violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, tortious interference, and statutory business and common law conspiracy (the “Appian Litigation”). The Appian complaint alleged efforts by PEGA to obtain Appian trade secrets through the contractor’s employee, who had access to Appian’s software and materials. The complaint further alleged that PEGA’s own employees, including its Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), misrepresented themselves as potential customers of Appian partners to improperly gain access to Appian’s trial software.

Despite the obvious materiality of the Appian Litigation, including its allegation that PEGA had essentially stolen Appian’s trade secrets and caused Appian massive damages, in violation of SEC reporting regulations, for nearly two full years during the Class Period Defendants never disclosed or described the Appian Litigation in its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or annual reports on Form 10-K. When they did finally discuss the Appian Litigation, Defendants falsely assured investors that the claims asserted in the litigation were “without merit,” PEGA faced no exposure in the litigation because Appian’s alleged damages “are not supported by the necessary legal standard of proximate cause,” and, even if PEGA was found liable, it was “unable to reasonably estimate possible damages.”

The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PEGA had engaged in corporate espionage and misappropriation of trade secrets to better compete against Appian; (2) Defendants’ product development and associated success was, in significant part, not the result of its own research and product testing but rather the result of such corporate espionage and trade secret theft; (3) Defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal Appian trade secrets, which was not only known to, but carried out through the personal involvement of PEGA’s CEO; (4) PEGA’s CEO and other officers and employees did not comply with PEGA’s written Code of Conduct; (5) PEGA was “unable to reasonably estimate damages” in the Appian Litigation; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about PEGA’s business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and potential damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made.

The truth regarding PEGA’s fraudulent conduct was revealed after the close of the markets on May 9, 2022, when PEGA issued a press release announcing that the jury in the Appian Litigation had awarded Appian more than $2 billion for PEGA’s misappropriation of trade secrets.

In response to this news, PEGA’s stock price fell 21%, from a closing price of $65.93 per share on May 9, 2022, to a closing price of $52.25 on May 10, 2022. As the market continued to digest the verdict, PEGA’s stock price dropped another 8% to close at $48.07 per share the following day.

For more information on the Pegasystems class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/PEGA

Humbl, Inc. (OTCMKTS: HMBL)

Class Period: November 1, 2020 – May 19, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022

Humbl is a mobile financial services company that offers investors various financial products associated with “Web 3” technology and decentralized finance.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s growth prospects, technological advancements, international partnerships, and financial benefits for Humbl common stock and digital asset investors, as well as using selectively timed announcements to keep Humbl stock price high so that Company insiders could sell off their holdings into artificially created volume. The complaint also alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act by selling its unregistered securities (BLOCK ETX digital assets) to investors.

On April 25, 2022, the price of the Humbl common stock hit a low of $0.11 per share, down from a price high of $6.84 during the Class Period, which it has not been able to recover. Likewise, the price of BLOCK ETX has dropped over 87% from its height during the Class Period and has not recovered.

For more information on the Humbl class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/HMBL

Okta, Inc. (NASDAQ: OKTA)

Class Period: March 5, 2021 – March 22, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022

Okta provides identity solutions for enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses, universities, non-profits, and government agencies in the U.S. and internationally. The Company offers a variety of cybersecurity products and services. Following its completed merger with Auth0, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Auth0”), on May 3, 2021 (the “Merger”), Okta began providing additional Auth0 products related to cybersecurity and login solutions. 

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate cybersecurity controls; (ii) as a result, Okta’s systems were vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a data breach caused by a hacking group, which potentially affected hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose and subsequently downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on Okta’s business, financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On or around March 21, 2022, hackers known as LAPSUS$ posted screenshots on their Telegram1 channel showing what they claimed was Okta’s internal company environment. Thereafter, on March 22, 2022, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Defendant Todd McKinnon (“McKinnon”), posted a statement on his Twitter account, disclosing that, “[i]n late January 2022, Okta detected an attempt to compromise the account of a third party customer support engineer working for one of our subprocessors”; that “[t]he matter was investigated and contained by the subprocessor”; that “[w]e believe the screenshots shared online are connected to this January event”; and that, “[b]ased on our investigation to date, there is no evidence of ongoing malicious activity beyond the activity detected in January.” 

On this news, Okta’s stock price fell $2.98 per share, or 1.76%, to close at $166.43 per share on March 22, 2022. 

Later, on March 22, 2022, during after-market hours, in a statement on Okta’s website, the Company’s Chief Security Officer (“CSO”), Defendant David Bradbury (“Bradbury”), disclosed, inter alia, that “[a]fter a thorough analysis of [the LAPSUS$] claims, we have concluded that a small percentage of customers – approximately 2.5% – have potentially been impacted and whose data may have been viewed or acted upon.” 

Following Okta’s updated statement, multiple news outlets reported that hundreds of the Company’s clients were potentially affected by the January 2022 data breach. For example, on March 23, 2022, CNN published an article entitled “Okta concedes hundreds of clients could be affected by breach[,]” noting that, despite the Company’s statement that “a small percentage of customers – approximately 2.5% – have potentially been impacted[,]” the Company “has over 15,000 customers, according to its website.” That same day, Reuters and others published similar reports. 

Separately, Okta was downgraded by Raymond James from “strong buy” to “market perform,” noting, among other things, that “[w]hile partners were willing to trust Okta’s track record, the handling of its latest security incident adds to our mounting concerns.” 

Following Okta’s after-market update and Raymond James downgrade, the Company’s stock price fell $17.88 per share, or 10.74%, to close at $148.55 per share on March 23, 2022.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

For more information on the Okta class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/OKTA

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.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com