Class Action Against Diagnostic Testing Company Marks First COVID-19 Related Securities Suit of 2021

A diagnostic testing company faces the first COVID-19-related securities lawsuit of 2021, following SEC allegations of misleading claims about a rapid coronavirus test.

Class Action Against Diagnostic Testing Company Marks First COVID-19 Related Securities Suit of 2021

Decision Diagnostics Corp., a diagnostic testing company, has been named as the defendant in the first coronavirus-related securities lawsuit of the new year. The case may also be the first coronavirus-related lawsuit filed in the wake of an SEC enforcement action against the same company.

The Shareholders’ Claims

A shareholder filed the claim on behalf of all similarly situated shareholders of Decision Diagnostics who purchased shares between March 3 and December 17, 2020. The complaint outlines allegations that during 2020, “Defendants claimed that the Company had developed a finger-prick blood test that could detect COVID-19 in less than one minute.” The plaintiff also alleges that Decision Diagnostics made representations indicating it had made progress toward receiving emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the finger-prick test.

According to the plaintiff, these and other statements made by Decision Diagnostics and CEO Keith Berman were “materially false and misleading.” In fact, the plaintiff asserts that Decision Diagnostics had developed no such COVID-19 test, could not meet the FDA’s testing requirements for emergency use authorization, and misrepresented the amount of time the company needed to bring a COVID-19 test to market.

The SEC Complaint

This shareholders’ lawsuit against Decision Diagnostics was preceded by a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) complaint against the company filed in December 2020. In that complaint, the SEC alleges that Decision Diagnostics announced, via press release, that it had developed a finger-prick test for COVID-19 that produced results in under one minute. This, according to the SEC, was a false claim. “While Berman and Decision Diagnostics portrayed its product as something that would change the landscape of the COVID-19 pandemic paralyzing the world, the truth was that the Company did not have a test, only an idea that had not materialized into a product,” the SEC complaint states.

By doing so, the SEC alleges, Decision Diagnostics and Berman violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act. Following this complaint, Decision Diagnostics’ common share price fell by 60%. Per the shareholder complaint, this drop in value is alleged to have caused monetary losses for the plaintiff and similarly-situated plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The Role of Experts in the Case

Like many other COVID-19 related securities suits, the claim against Decision Diagnostics alleges, in essence, that a company made claims about a coronavirus-related product on which it could not deliver, resulting in harm to shareholders. In addition, many of these lawsuits focus on claims made in the early months of the pandemic. Again, the Decision Diagnostics case is no exception: both the SEC complaint and the shareholders’ class action complaint focus primarily on claims made between March and June 2020.

This case is likely to focus at least in part on what Decision Diagnostics knew about its finger-prick test’s development and at what time. To unpack this question, expert witnesses who can speak to how COVID-19 tests are developed and what the FDA demands in terms of evidence will be essential to the case.

Expert witnesses able to discuss how news of a test, or of an SEC filing, affect the market value of shares in a particular company may also be asked to opine on the connection between the SEC’s complaint and the subsequent drop in share prices—a key factor in shareholders’ claim of harm.

About the author

Dani Alexis Ryskamp, J.D.

Dani Alexis Ryskamp, J.D.

Dani Alexis Ryskamp, J.D., is a multifaceted legal professional with extensive experience in insurance defense, personal injury, and medical malpractice law. Her diverse background includes valuable internships in criminal defense, which have enriched her understanding of various legal sectors. She served as the Executive Note Editor of the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, demonstrating a strong commitment to legal scholarship. Dani graduated with a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2007, following a summa cum laude B.A. in English from Ferris State University in 2004. She is an active member of the Michigan State Bar and the American Bar Association, reflecting her dedication to the legal profession.

Currently, Dani has channeled her legal expertise into a successful career as a freelance writer and book critic, primarily focusing on the legal and literary markets. Her writing portfolio encompasses a wide range of topics, including landmark settlements in medical negligence cases, jury awards in personal injury lawsuits, and analyses of legal trial tactics. Her work not only showcases her legal acumen but also her exceptional ability to communicate complex legal issues effectively to a broader audience. Dani's unique blend of legal practice experience and her prowess in legal writing positions her at the intersection of law and literature, allowing her to contribute meaningfully to both fields.

Dani earned her Bachelor of Arts in English from Ferris State University, where she was involved in various activities, including serving as a tutor at the Writing Center, editor in chief of the Muskegon River Review, president of the Dead Poets' Society, secretary of the Public Administration Association, and a member of the varsity synchronized skating team. She obtained her Doctor of Law from the University of Michigan Law School, participating in the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, Wolverine Street Law Moot Court, and the Mock Trial Team. Additionally, Dani holds a Master of Arts in English Language and Literature/Letters from Western Michigan University, where she was a graduate assistant for the Hilltop Review.

background image

Subscribe to our newsletter

Join our newsletter to stay up to date on legal news, insights and product updates from Expert Institute.