ViroPharma Incorporated - 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

ViroPharma Incorporated Conclusion: According to a press release dated November 17, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order Wednesday granting final approval of a settlement to a class-action lawsuit filed by ViroPharma Inc. stockholders. The settlement calls for payment of $9 million by the Exton, Pa.-based biopharmaceutical company's insurance carriers to the class, without any payment by ViroPharma (Nasdaq:VPHM) or any other defendants, and for dismissal of the action with prejudice.

In a press release dated July 27, 2004, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued an order granting preliminary approval of a settlement of the class action. In March 2004, the Company announced that it had entered into the agreement in principle to settle this litigation. The preliminary settlement calls for payment of $9.0 million by the Company's insurance carriers to the class, without any payment by ViroPharma or the other defendants, and for dismissal of the action with prejudice. The settlement is conditioned on final court approval after notice to the plaintiff class and expiration of the time for appeal from any order of the Court approving the settlement.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made highly positive statements regarding the Company's Drug Picovir. ViroPharma represented that its growth was contingent on U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of its' Picovir (pleconaril) drug as a cure for the common cold. ViroPharma informed the investing public of every positive part of the Picovir studies. The Company sent numerous press releases praising the effectiveness of Picovir. The Company minimized or concealed potential obstacles to FDA approval. On March 19, 2002 trading was halted as the Company revealed that an FDA advisory committee was deciding the fate of ViroPharma's cold treatment, Picovir. The panel voted 15-0 against approval because of safety concerns.However, during the Class Period, the Company insisted that treatment was well tolerated and that adverse events were comparable to placebo in the trials. On March 20, 2002 after the resumption of trading, shares of ViroPharma plummeted 60 percent. The 15-member FDA committee had questions about the safety of the drug in women taking oral contraceptives and in the elderly. In addition, the committee asked for broader studies on the drug's benefits with minorities, the elderly, patients with asthma and chronic bronchitis, children, and more about the drug's interaction with other medications. They also expressed concern that the drug may develop drug-resistant cold germs. The FDA pointed out that the drug had several significant side effects, with headache the most frequently cited. Seven patients out of 4,500 who took the drug reported rapid heart palpitations and four patients withdrew from the study for that reason. The side effect that most concerned the panel was abnormal bleeding by 3 percent of women taking birth control pills. Because Picovir needs to be taken within the first 24 hours of getting a cold and after eating, several panelists worried that doctors would dole out prescriptions before the cold season began, without discussing safety considerations. There were tremendous obstacles for ViroPharma to overcome before it could receive regulatory approval for Picovir. These obstacles, as enumerated by the FDA as set forth above, were undisclosed during the Class Period, but were well known to defendants by virtue of their testing and trials of this drug on thousands of people for several years.

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

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	ViroPharma Incorporated
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	VPHM
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.viropharma.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Gaines, et al. v. ViroPharma Incorporated, et al.

COURT: E.D. Pennsylvania	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-CV-1627
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Clarence C. Newcomer
DATE FILED: 03/26/2002	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/13/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/19/2002
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net 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 Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR) P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438 (voice) 501.312.8500, (fax) 501.312.8505, Emerson Poynter LLP 2228 Cottondale Avenue, Suite 100, Little Rock, AR, 72202 (voice) 800.663.9817, (fax) 501.907.2556, epllp@emersonpoynter.com Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) , pivenlaw@erols.com Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C. 200 N LaSalle St Ste 2100, Chicago, IL, 60601 (voice) 312.346.3100, (fax) , Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 8

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/26/2002

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: ViroPharma Incorporated Securities Litigation

COURT: E.D. Pennsylvania	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-CV-1627
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Clarence C. Newcomer
DATE FILED: 07/26/2002	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/13/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/19/2002
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Schiffrin & Craig, Ltd. Three Bala Plaza East Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Notice
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 07/30/2004
Proof of Claim and Release Form
Type: Other		Date on the document: 07/30/2004
Order and Final Judgment
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/16/2004
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/16/2004

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Bryce
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/16/2002
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Lone, et al. v. ViroPharma Incorporated, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/24/2003

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

�