Scynexis, Inc.

On September 25, 2023, before the market opened, the Company reported that, following a recent review of the manufacturing process and equipment at the vendor that manufactures the ibrexafungerp drug substance, the Company became aware of potential cross contamination of ibrexafungerp with a non-antibacterial beta-lactam drug substance. As the Company explained, “[c]urrent FDA guidance recommends segregating the manufacture of beta-lactam compounds from other compounds since beta-lactam compounds have the potential to act as sensitizing agents that may trigger hypersensitivity or an allergic reaction in some people.”  The Company therefore declared it would conduct a recall of BREXAFEMME from the market and place a temporary hold on clinical studies of ibrexafungerp, including a Phase 3 clinical study, until a mitigation strategy and a resupply plan are determined.

On this news, the Company’s shares fell $1.13, or 34.14%, to close at $2.18 per share on September 25, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to decline the next trading day by 11.47% to close at $1.93 per share on September 26, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the equipment used to manufacture ibrexafungerp was also used to manufacture a non-antibacterial beta-lactam drug substance, presenting a risk of cross-contamination; (2) that the Company did not have effective internal controls and procedures, as well as adequate internal oversight policies to ensure that its vendor complied with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP); (3) that, due to the substantial risk of cross-contamination, Scynexis was reasonably likely to recall its ibrexafungerp tablets and halt its clinical studies; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.