Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (NYSE: TEVA)

  • Do you, or did you, own shares of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (NYSE: TEVA)?
  • Did you purchase your shares between January 1, 2012 and October 29, 2013, inclusive?
  • Did you lose money in your investment in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited?
  • Do you want to discuss your rights?

If the answer to these questions is "yes," please contact the lawyers at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. ("R & L") today to schedule a FREE consultation. Just call us , or fill out our contact form so that we can call at your convenience. Your consultation will not create any obligation to use our services at any time.

Contact R & L today to be sure your best interests are being protected.

R & L is national law firm with decades of combined legal experience. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Teva” or the “Company”) (NYSE: TEVA) between January 1, 2012 and October 29, 2013 (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Complaint”).  The case is entitled Edison v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Case No. 13-cv-8963 (S.D.N.Y.).  The Complaint names Teva and certain of its officers and directors as defendants. 

Click here to read the full press release.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (NYSE: TEVA)

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Teva” or  the “Company”) (NYSE: TEVA) between January 1, 2012 and October 29, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against certain of the Company’s officers (the “Complaint”).  The case is entitled Edison v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Case No. 13-cv-8963 (S.D.N.Y.).

If you purchased shares of Teva during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Teva, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com.                

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business operations, financial condition and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that there was significant internal discord between the Board of Directors (“Board”) and Teva’s senior management during the Class Period (and in particular, significant differences between the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)) concerning execution of the Company’s strategies, including implementation of the critical Cost Cutting Program.  As a result of the foregoing, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. 

According to the Complaint, on January 1, 2012, the Chairman of Teva’s Board, Phillip Frost (“Frost”), announced that Shlomo Yanai (“Yanai”) was retiring as the Company’s CEO and President, and that the Board had named Dr. Jeremy Levin (“Levin”), a former senior executive at Bristol-Myers Squibb, to replace Yanai in those positions.

In December 2012, Levin and his management team announced a five-year cost cutting program projected to help Teva achieve annual cost savings of $1.5 billion to $2 billion by 2018.

On October 10, 2013, Teva announced an acceleration of its cost cutting program under which it would lay off 5,000 workers worldwide in 2014, including about 800 employees in Israel.

On October 16, 2013, the press reported that the planned layoffs in Israel had generated a public uproar.  One member of Israel’s parliament was quoted as stating that Teva’s planned layoffs were “an act of cannibalism” in light of the tax breaks and subsidies that Teva has long enjoyed in Israel.

On October 28, 2013, Channel 2 television in Israel quoted unnamed sources as indicating that Levin was considering resigning due to strong differences of opinion between himself and Frost concerning execution of Teva’s strategy, including how to handle the planned layoffs in Israel.  Among other things, Channel 2 cited a letter from certain senior executives to the Board stating that “the lack of unity among the board of directors and CEO hurts our ability to make the necessary changes,” and urging the Board to “reconsider its intervention in the daily course of business that we believe has become common in recent months and prevents management from being able to manage Teva effectively.”

Later that day, Levin denied that he was considering resigning because of disagreements with Frost and the Board, and Teva issued a separate statement saying that reports of differences of opinion between Levin and Frost over execution were “baseless.”

On October 30, 2013, Teva announced that Levin would, in fact, be resigning as CEO and President.  In connection with Levin’s departure, Frost was quoted as stating that there were differences between the Board and Levin concerning execution of Teva’s strategy.

Upon the news of Levin’s departure, shares in Teva declined more than 8%, closing at $37.70 per shares on October 30, 2013, on heavy trading volume of over 51 million shares

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 24, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting 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.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R & L, with offices in Delaware and New York, litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Learn more about R&L:  Visit Our WebsiteOur Firm  |  Our Practice Areas  |  FAQ's

Fill out the form below or call us toll-free at 888-969-4242, for a FREE no-obligation consultation.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.