The complaint alleges that on September 8, 2014 , Seres announced final data from its Phase 1b clinical trial of SER-109, which yielded positive results including clinical cures and a favorable safety profile. Seres proceeded to Phase 2 of the clinical trial to further evaluate the efficacy of SER-109. Meanwhile, the company shed SER-109 in a positive light, stating that it believed SER-109 would enable it “to provide a more effective and safer treatment for preventing the recurrence of CDI than the current standard of care.” Seres subsequently issued a press release announcing positive first quarter 2015 financial results, stating that it had “made significant progress this quarter to advance our mission of delivering Ecobiotic microbiome medicines to patients” and that its successful initial public offering indicated confidence in the company’s science and data to date.

However, the complaint alleges that Seres officials misrepresented the efficacy of SER-109 and its attendant capacity for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as well as the structure of the Phase 2 trial. Seres management was allegedly aware that enrollment rates in the parallel open-label study of SER-109 were not performing well in the Phase 2 trial, and that formulation changes had been made to the Phase 2 trial which could affect the clinical cure rate of SER-109. On July 29, 2016 , Seres disclosed that SER-109 had failed to reach its primary endpoint of reducing the relative risk of CDI recurrence at up to 8 weeks when compared to a placebo. Specifically, CDI recurrence occurred in 44% of subjects who received SER-109, compared to 53% of subjects who received a placebo. The company further stated that the relative risk of CDI recurrence for the placebo population compared to the SER-109 population was not statistically significant.

On this news, Seres stock declined more than 70% to close at $9.73 per share on August 1, 2016 .

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than November 28, 2016 , request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as “lead plaintiff.”  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP ( Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire ) toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at [email protected] or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mcrb .  For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com .

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.  Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.

CONTACT:   Ryan & Maniskas, LLP  Richard A. Maniskas , Esquire  995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311  Wayne, PA 19087  484-588-5516  877-316-3218  www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mcrb    [email protected]

For more information, please visit the source link below.