QLT, 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

QLT, Inc. Conclusion: According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2004, on June 21, 2004, the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York issued an Order denying the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The time period within which the plaintiffs could appeal the Opinion and Order dismissing the class action complaint expired on July 22, 2004. No appeal was filed by that date. QLT believes that this lawsuit has now been finally concluded.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2004, in January and February of 2001 seven proposed securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common shares between August 1, 2000 and December 14, 2000. On May 3, 2001, the court ordered consolidation of the seven actions. On March 31, 2004 the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the class action complaint with prejudice. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for plaintiffs filed a motion with the same court for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order dismissing the class action complaint.

The original complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and misleading financial information regarding the Company's condition and prospects. Specifically, the complaint charges that during the Class Period defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading financial information, press releases, and other information concerning the demand for Visudyne, a drug made by the Company that was recently approved by the FDA to treat wet age-related macular degeneration ("AMD"), an eye disease that causes blindness in elderly people. On December 14, 2000, QLT announced that it expected to miss its sales estimates for the fourth-quarter ended December 31, 2000. QLT attributed the shortfall to slower than expected growth in demand for Visudyne due to lack of reimbursement from governmental health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other third party payers for the cost of Visudyne treatment in Europe and the United States. QLT also lowered its sales forecasts for the year 2001. These statements contradicted prior information issued by defendants concerning the demand for Visudyne and the Company's prospects. In response, the Company's common stock price plummeted approximately 31% on extremely heavy volume, losing $12.375 per share from the prior day's close of $40.438 per share. The dissemination of this materially misleading information caused QLT's common stock to be artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. Defendants were motivated to inflate the price of QLT stock so that Company insiders could dump their own shares on unsuspecting investors. Indeed, when the price of QLT stock was at its highest level of the year, defendants Levy and Galbraith sold over 157,000 shares of QLT stock, reaping proceeds of approximately CN$18.32 million.

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

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	QLT, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	QLTI
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.qltinc.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

[Unknown plaintiff], et al. v. QLT, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-00669
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Sidney H. Stein
DATE FILED: 01/28/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/14/2000
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.668.7987., (fax) 610.660.0450, esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA) 225 Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92010 (voice) 619.702.7350, (fax) 619.702.7351, Leo W. Desmond 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409 (voice) 561.712.8000, (fax) , stocklaw@bellsouth.net 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 Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia) 1818 Market Street; Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 215.496.0300, (fax) 215.496.6610, classaction@srk-law.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 5

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: QLT, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-00669
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Sidney H. Stein
DATE FILED: 06/18/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/14/2000
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY) 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 800.217.1522, (fax) , info@bernlieb.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/21/2004

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Jordan, et al. v. QLT, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/13/2001

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

�