The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. (“Iovance” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: IOVA) securities between May 9, 2024 and May 8, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Iovance investors have until July 14, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

What Happened?

On May 8, 2025, after the market closed, Iovance released its first quarter 2025 financial results, revealing a quarterly total product revenue of $49.3 million, a significant decline from the prior quarter’s $73.7 million. The Company also announced its full fiscal year 2025 total product revenue guidance had been slashed from $450 million – $475 million to $250 million – $300 million, a reduction of over 40% at the midpoint. The Company revealed it was “revising full-year 2025 revenue guidance to reflect recent launch dynamics” of Amtagvi. The Company further revealed “[t]he updated forecast considers experience with ATC [authorized treatment center] growth trajectories and treatment timelines for new ATCs.”

On this news, the price of Iovance shares declined $1.42 per share, or 44.8%, to close at $1.75 per share on May 9, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume.

What Is The Lawsuit About?

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 made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) new Authorized Treatment Centers were experiencing longer timelines to begin treating patients with Amtagvi; (2) the Company’s sales team and new ATCs were ineffective in patient identification and patient selection for Amtagvi, leading to higher patient drop-offs; (3) the foregoing dynamics led to higher costs and lower revenue because ATCs could not keep pace with manufactured product; and (4) that, 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.