FINAL DEADLINE TOMORROW: The Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit with Extended Class Period Against FibroGen, Inc. and Encourages Investors with Losses in Excess of $250,000 to Contact the Firm

Jun 24, 2021 2:07 PM ET


The Schall Law Firm announced today that they have filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff Thomas Leonard against FibroGen, Inc. and certain of its officers, which expands the class period. The class action is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired FibroGen securities between October 18, 2017 and April 6, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at, or by email at [email protected]

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. First, the safety data underlying FibroGen's Phase 3 trials of roxadustat in China demonstrated that any data obtained from its global Phase 3 program would not meet the FDA's requirements without post-hoc changes to the stratification factors, but the Company proceeded with its global Phase 3 program anyway. The Company's subsequent disclosures of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from its global Phase 3 program included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors. The Company's analyses with the original stratification factors resulted in higher hazard ratios (point estimates of relative risk) and 95% confidence intervals. The Company could not demonstrate that roxadustat reduces the risk of or is a better treatment than MACE+ in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis compared to epoetin-alfa. The Company faced uncertainty over the approval of its NDA for Roxadustat by the FDA. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about FibroGen, investors suffered damages.

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
Office: 310-301-3335
[email protected]

Tags: Wire, Classaction-Marketing, Legal Newswire, United States, English