A lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors in Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (formerly NASDAQ:SVA) shares over alleged securities laws violations.
San Diego, CA -- (SBWIRE) -- 09/02/2022 -- An investor, who purchased shares of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (formerly NASDAQ: SVA), filed a lawsuit over alleged Securities Laws violations by 1Globe Capital LLC.
Investors, who purchased shares of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (formerly NASDAQ: SVA) between April 11, 2016 and February 22, 2019, have certain options and for certain investors are short and strict deadlines running. Deadline: October 17, 2022. Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (formerly NASDAQ: SVA) investors should contact the Shareholders Foundation at email@example.com or call +1(858) 779 - 1554.
Since January 2016, competing sets of shareholders have been vying for control of Sinovac. The plaintiff says that the Defendants are individuals and entities associated with 1Globe, a family investment office that is owned and controlled by Defendant Jiaqiang Li ("Li"), that Li was Sinovac Biotech Ltd's largest shareholders when 1Globe's Chief Executive Officer made an offer in January 2016 to buy Sinovac for approximately $350 million, that Li supported a competing group that sought to buy Sinovac for a higher price. Rather than provide this support in an open and transparent manner, Li and 1Globe used deceptive practices to advance their position.
The plaintiff claims that after Sinovac Biotech Ltd. adopted the Rights Agreement on March 28, 2016, which contained a "poison pill" that limited the amount of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. stock that a shareholder could acquire, the Defendants made many intentionally false and misleading statements, and violated their statutory disclosure obligations under Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Section 13(d)"), in order to conceal the extent and purpose of Li's and 1Globe's ownership of Sinovac stock.
Furthermore, the plaintiff alleges that in addition to misrepresenting the amount of Sinovac stock that Li and 1Globe owned, the Defendants misrepresented their secret plan to act in concert with other shareholders to try to take control of the Company and that while Sinovac Biotech Ltd. knew that Li and 1Globe were acting in concert based on the Company's private communications with them during the battle for control of the Company, this information was not known to public shareholders.
The plaintiff says that the Plaintiff and holders of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (NASDAQ: SVA) stock between April 11, 2016 and February 22, 2019 that have been caught in the middle of this battle between Sinovac's management and 1Globe for control of the Company and that while Plaintiff and holders of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (NASDAQ: SVA) stock between April 11, 2016 and February 22, 2019 also seek to receive fair value if Sinovac Biotech Ltd. is taken private, Defendants' behind-the-scenes scheming impeded this effort. Instead, Defendants have caused Plaintiff and holders of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (NASDAQ: SVA) stock between April 11, 2016 and February 22, 2019 substantial harm by making them lose their ability to collect at least millions of shares that they would have otherwise been entitled to under the Rights Agreement.
The plaintiff claims that the Defendants' intentionally false statements and omissions concerning the true nature of Li's and 1Globe's ownership of Sinovac stock caused the exchange ("Exchange") under the Rights Agreement 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 as day that the Rights Agreement was triggered by May 2016, at the latest, that 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, and that the Defendants therefore also tortiously interfered with Sinovac's contractual obligations to its shareholders under the Rights Agreement.
The plaintiff says that if 1Globe and Li's actions were disclosed publicly, as they were required to be under Section 13(d), Plaintiff's rights would have been exercisable based on that public disclosure, and an Exchange would have occurred based on that date, that 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 Plaintiff and holders of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (NASDAQ: SVA) stock between April 11, 2016 and February 22, 2019 losing their rights to acquire additional shares of Sinovac stock for all of their shares that they sold in the interim, that 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), and that the 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.
Those who purchased shares of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (formerly NASDAQ: SVA) have certain options and should contact the Shareholders Foundation.
Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
3111 Camino Del Rio North - Suite 423
92108 San Diego
About The Shareholders Foundation
The Shareholders Foundation, Inc. is a professional portfolio monitoring and settlement claim filing service, , which does research related to shareholder issues and informs investors of securities class actions, settlements, judgments, and other legal related news to the stock/financial market. Shareholders Foundation, Inc. is in contact with a large number of shareholders and offers help, support, and assistance for every shareholder. The Shareholders Foundation, Inc. is not a law firm. Referenced cases, investigation, and/or settlements are not filed/reached and/or related to Shareholders Foundation. The information is provided as a public service. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied upon.