The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on behalf of those who acquired Inotiv, Inc. (“Inotiv”) (NASDAQ: NOTV) securities from September 21, 2021 through June 13, 2022, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). Investors have until August 22, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Inotiv is a contract research organization which provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services and research models and related products and services.
On November 5, 2021, Inotiv completed the acquisition of Envigo RMS, LLC (“Envigo”) which is now a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Inotiv.
On May 20, 2022, Inotiv filed with the SEC a current report on Form 8-K which announced the search and seizure at Inotiv’s Cumberland, Virginia facility (the “Cumberland Facility”) and the subsequent DOJ Complaint alleging violations of the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”). On this news, the price of Inotiv shares declined by $5.19 per share, or approximately 28.31%, from $18.33 per share to close at $13.14 per share on May 23, 2022.
On June 13, 2022, Inotiv issued a press release entitled “Inotiv, Inc. Announces Site Closures and Consolidation Plans” which announced the closure of two Envigo facilities mere months after the acquisition. On this news, the price of Inotiv shares declined by $0.25 per share, or approximately 1.92%, from $13.03 per share to close at $12.78 per share on June 14, 2022.
The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Envigo and Inotiv’s Cumberland Facility engaged in widespread and flagrant violations of the AWA; (2) Envigo and Inotiv’s Cumberland Facility continuously violated the AWA; (3) Envigo and Inotiv did not properly remedy issues with regards to animal welfare at the Cumberland Facility; (4) as a result, Inotiv was likely to face increased scrutiny and governmental action; (5) Inotiv would imminently shut down two facilities, including the Cumberland Facility; (6) Inotiv did not engage in proper due diligence; and (7) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.