IsoRay is the subject of multiple lawsuits alleging the company made misleading statements concerning the clinical performance of its Cesium 131 cancer treatment.

IsoRay Faces Several Lawsuits for Deceptive Claims

At least 3 different shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits against IsoRay claiming that the company made false statements about a clinical study of Cesium 131.

IsoRay is accused of issuing misleading and insincere statements regarding its clinical trial of its Cesium 131 brachytherapy seeds ability to treat cancer.  They claimed that Cesium 131 had a 100% survival rate at 5 years in high-risk patents and a 96% success rate in local tumor control.

Websites like TheStreet.com criticized IsoRay’s claims and suggested that the company may be inflating its stock value. MassDevice.com states, “IsoRay shares fell 35.3% to a $2.02-per-share close May 21 and were back to $1.51 apiece today.”

Information About the IsoRay Lawsuit

The lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Eastern Washington and Central California.

This is an excerpt of one of the lawsuits: “As a result of defendants’ false statements, IsoRay securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period. However, after the above revelations seeped into the market, the company’s shares were hammered by massive sales, sending the company’s stock price down to where it had traded at prior to the May 20, 2015 press release, causing economic harm and damages to Class members.”

According to MassDevice, this was the first major peer-reviewed study of the brachytherapy seeds.

Nationstar Mortgage Holding’s actions have come into question lately after being asked to halt all foreclosures in 23 states by four attorney generals. According to the Wall Street Journal, they resumed foreclosure proceedings after an internal review of its practices, according to a new bond prospectus filed by the firm.

4 State Attorney Generals Asked Nationstar to:

• Suspend foreclosures in October 2010. The registration was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for $1.4 billion to be offered in senior notes.
• Halt all foreclosure proceedings until internal reviews are done to ensure compliance with the law.
• Provide information to U.S. authorities from servicers, such as Nationstar, in regards to notarization and affidavit procedures.

Nationstar’s Defense

• Documents do not indicate that the filings give a clear timeframe for its requests, or for the suspension of the foreclosures.
• Regarding notarization and affidavit procedures, Nationstar continued to say their loans in 2012 were “not affected” by the many inquires. Yet, they could not say whether future foreclosures would be affected by similar questioning.

“The company received the request from authorities for the foreclosure halt in October 2010, though it was not known how long the halt lasted or when the procedures resumed.” –Nationstar spokesman

Nationstar Has Not Made Any Changes

There is also no sign from Nationstar that they will change any of their practices as of a result from the review.

Inquiries, court backlogs, and growing court procedures could cause extended delays in foreclosure proceedings. They could also potentially increase the firm’s costs, said the Lewisville, Texas company which handles administrative duties on more than 1.8 million home loans.

Threats from the New York attorney general charge other banks for not complying with the terms of a $25 billion foreclosure-abuse settlement in 2012. This pact was created to address wrongs such as “robosigning,” a practice in which firms and banks certify legal documents without following laws.

Contact an Experienced Consumer Protection Attorney

Thomas J. Henry are leaders in the area of consumer protection litigation. Our attorneys have the knowledge and resources to represent clients efficiently and aggressively. If you or a loved one has suffered as a result of unfair or unsafe business practices, contact Thomas J. Henry immediately. We are available 24/7, nights and weekends.

Numerous banks and mortgage lenders are under fire for the terms of their so-called “force placed insurance policies,” with some even facing legal and regulatory actions related to purchase of these policies. Banks and mortgage companies under investigation include:

• American Security
• Assurant
• Bank of America
• Chase Bank
• Citigroup
• CitiMortgage
• JP Morgan Chase
• SunTrust
• Wells Fargo

Force Placed Insurance Defined

“Force placed insurance,” also referred to as “creditor placed” or “lender placed” is insurance that banks/mortgage companies purchase to cover a home when a homeowner lapses on mandated insurance coverage.

This practice, while legal, has been linked to other unethical, deceitful, and illegal tactics aimed to benefit lenders and insurance providers at the homeowner’s expense.

Lender Placed Insurance Tactics Exposed

Lenders have been known to take advantage of force placed insurance policies by utilizing a number of unscrupulous business tactics, including:

• Placing forced insurance policies on homes already covered by insurance.
• Keeping the force placed coverage even after receiving evidence that a borrower has recovered their own insurance.
• Purchasing a force placed plan at a rate substantially higher than the current market rate.
• Charging homeowners for more that the actual cost of the force placed insurance policy.
• Failing to inform the homeowner that their insurance lapsed and setting up force placed coverage without homeowner’s knowledge.
• Purchasing the force placed coverage from the bank’s own insurance subsidiary.
• Taking commission payment or other incentive from insurance provider for their service.

Contact an Experienced Consumer Advocate Attorney

If you believe your bank or mortgage lender has taken advantage of you through a force placed insurance policy, contact Thomas J. Henry immediately. Attorneys are available 24/7 to talk to you about your rights.