1Globe Capital Deadline Alert

Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Notifies Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (SVA) Investors of Class Action Against 1Globe Capital LLC To Contact Him Directly To Discuss Their Options

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - September 30, 2022) - Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against 1Globe Capital LLC ("1Globe") on behalf of a class consisting of all holders of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. ("Sinovac" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SVA) stock and reminds investors of the October 17, 2022 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company.

If you are a shareholder who sold Sinovac securities between April 11, 2016 and February 22, 2019 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/SVA.

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6455/139060_205d0ab07496a98b_001.jpg

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

Since January 2016, competing sets of shareholders have been vying for control of Sinovac. Defendants are individuals and entities associated with 1Globe, a family investment office that is owned and controlled by Defendant Jiaqiang Li ("Li"). Li was Sinovac's largest shareholders when 1Globe's Chief Executive Officer made an offer in January 2016 to buy Sinovac for approximately $350 million. Li supported a competing group that sought to buy Sinovac for a higher price. Rather than provide this support in an open and transparent manner, Li and 1Globe used deceptive practices to advance their position. After Sinovac adopted the Rights Agreement on March 28, 2016, which contained a "poison pill" that limited the amount of Sinovac stock that a shareholder could acquire, Defendants made many intentionally false and misleading statements, and violated their statutory disclosure obligations under Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Section 13(d)"), in order to conceal the extent and purpose of Li's and 1Globe's ownership of Sinovac stock.

In addition to misrepresenting the amount of Sinovac stock that Li and 1Globe owned, Defendants misrepresented their secret plan to act in concert with other shareholders to try to take control of the Company. While Sinovac knew that Li and 1Globe were acting in concert based on the Company's private communications with them during the battle for control of the Company, this information was not known to public shareholders.

Plaintiff and the Class are Sinovac shareholders that have been caught in the middle of this battle between Sinovac's management and 1Globe for control of the Company. While Plaintiff and the Class also seek to receive fair value if Sinovac is taken private, Defendants' behind-the-scenes scheming impeded this effort. Instead, Defendants have caused Plaintiff and the Class substantial harm by making them lose their ability to collect at least millions of shares that they would have otherwise been entitled to under the Rights Agreement.

Even the purchase of a single share of Sinovac stock above the Rights Agreement's 15% threshold constitutes a trigger event under the Rights Agreement. All of Li's and 1Globe's purchases of Sinovac stock that they made-or directed to be made on their behalf-after March 28, 2016, therefore triggered Sinovac's poison pill.

Defendants' intentionally false statements and omissions concerning the true nature of Li's and 1Globe's ownership of Sinovac stock caused the exchange ("Exchange") under the Rights Agreement to be delayed by several years. If Li had fully disclosed his ownership of Sinovac stock, as he was required to do under Section 13(d), it would have been clear as day that the Rights Agreement was triggered by May 2016, at the latest. While Sinovac knew enough information starting in 2016, largely based on private correspondence, to determine that 1Globe and Li triggered the Rights Agreement, Defendants hid the full extent of their ownership of Sinovac stock and their agreements in connection with the battle for control of the Company. Defendants therefore also tortiously interfered with Sinovac's contractual obligations to its shareholders under the Rights Agreement.

If 1Globe and Li's actions were disclosed publicly, as they were required to be under Section 13(d), Plaintiff's rights would have been exercisable based on that public disclosure, and an Exchange would have occurred based on that date. By misrepresenting the true nature of their ownership of Sinovac stock, Defendants caused that date to be delayed almost three years, until February 22, 2019, resulting in Plaintiff and the Class losing their rights to acquire additional shares of Sinovac stock for all of their shares that they sold in the interim. While Sinovac should have implemented the Rights Agreement in 2016 based on the information available to it at the time, 1Globe and Li exacerbated the problem by violating their disclosure obligations under Section 13(d). Moreover, Defendants caused the value of Sinovac stock to be artificially depressed by preventing the public from accounting for the value of Defendants' stake in Sinovac and their efforts to take control of the Company.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding 1Globe's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/139060

info