Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated April 19, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that people who file suit claiming securities fraud must show a cause-and-effect connection between a defendant's action and an economic loss, not just an inflated stock price caused by the action. The high court ruling came in a case brought by people who bought stock in Dura Pharmaceuticals Inc. in 1997 and 1998. In the unanimous opinion, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said at the moment the purchase takes place, a plaintiff has suffered no loss. He or she has paid an inflated price, but in turn owns a share that is worth that inflated price, no matter how temporary. Moreover, Breyer said, the link between an inflated price and later economic loss is not particularly strong, since other factors may come into play. The complaint's "failure to claim that Dura's share price fell significantly after the truth became known suggests that the plaintiffs considered the allegation of purchase price inflation alone sufficient," Breyer said. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court ruling and sent the case back "for further proceedings consistent with this (high court) opinion."

On November 6, 2001, the Court entered the Order and Judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second consolidated and amended complaint with prejudice and the case was terminated. Soon after, on December 4, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals. On November 19, 2003, the Court entered the certified copy of the judgment from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversing and remanding the Decision of the District Court and the case was reopened.

The original complaint charges Dura and certain of its officers, directors and its investment bankers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements about Dura's supposedly well-trained and highly effective sales force, strong sales of Dura's Ceclor CD, Keftab, Nasarel/Nasalide, Rondec and Dura-Vent products, and the successful development of its new Spiros drug delivery system. These representations artificially inflated Dura's stock to a Class Period high of $53 in October 1997.

On March 23, 2009, a Stipulation Of Settlement and a Lead Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Unopposed Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Settlement was entered on the docket.

As summarized by the latest docket, on August 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. On June 5, 2006, the Court entered the Order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the third consolidated and amended complaint. On July 21, 2006, the plaintiffs amended their complaint again by filing a Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 5, 2006, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fourth consolidated amended complaint.

On July 31, 2009, an order granting a motion for Preliminary approval of settlement and providing for notice and denying without prejudice was entered into the court.

On December 04, 2009, three orders were granted by the court: (1) Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice; (2) Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Expenses; (3) Approving Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 2834
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	DURA
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.durapharm.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Michael Broudo, et al. v. Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-00151
JUDGE NAME: Hon. John S. Rhoades
DATE FILED: 01/27/1999	SOURCE: Internet
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/15/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/24/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Brian Felgoise 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Philadelphia, PA, 19102 (voice) 215.735.6810, (fax) 215/735.5185., Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Seattle, WA, 98014 (voice) 206.521.0080, (fax) 206.521.0166, lawinfo@cmht.com Donovan Miller, L.L.C. 1608 Walnut Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 212732.6020, (fax) , dmlaw@erols.com James V. Bashian 500 Fifth Ave Ste 2800, New York, NY, 10110 (voice) , (fax) , Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.317.2300, (fax) , Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. One South Broad Street - Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA, 19107 (voice) 215.238.1700, (fax) 215.238.1960, info@kohnswift.com Lockridge Grindal Nauen & Holstein 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN, 55401 (voice) 612.339.6900, (fax) , Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York) 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 10

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/27/1999
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/19/1999

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-00151
JUDGE NAME: Hon. M. James Lorenz
DATE FILED: 07/21/2006	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/15/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/24/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Third Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego) 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA, 92130 (voice) 858.793.0070, (fax) 858.793.0323, blbg@blbglaw.com Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC) 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005 (voice) 202.408.4600, (fax) 202.408.4699, lawinfo@cmht.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Los Angeles) 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071 (voice) 213.617.9007, (fax) 213.617.9185, info@lerachlaw.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 5

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/25/2000
US District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 01/12/2004
Third Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/26/2005
Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/21/2006
Lead Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Unopposed Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Settlement.
Type: Other		Date on the document: 03/23/2009
Stipulation Of Settlement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 03/23/2009
Notice Of Pendency And Proposed Settlement Of Class Action
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 07/31/2009
Order (1) Granting Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Settlement And Providing For Notice And (2) Denying Without Prejudice Motion To Withdraw As Lead Plaintiffs
Type: Order		Date on the document: 07/31/2009
Final Judgment And Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/04/2009
Order Approving Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/04/2009
Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees And Expenses
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/04/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/04/2009

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934
Case Name and/or Number: Rothstein, et al v. Dura Pharmaceuticals, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/04/1999
Opinion of the Court (from the Supreme Court of the United States): On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
Case Name and/or Number: Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Michael Broudo, et al.
Type: Other		Date on the document: 04/19/2005

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�