 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Gilead Sciences, Inc. Summary: The original complaint charges Gilead and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC. The complaint alleges that in an effort to allow Gilead insiders to sell their Gilead stock at artificially inflated prices, defendants falsely represented that strong sales of Viread, the Company's HIV drug, during the second quarter of 2003 was due to an increase in prescriptions and not, as some analysts had cautioned, due to inventory build-up by distributors stocking up ahead of a price increase. Such statements were materially false and misleading because, as defendants knew or recklessly disregarded, a material portion of the second quarter Viread sales were attributable to distributors stocking up ahead of a price increase. Gilead insiders sold a total of 303,981 shares in August 2003 at artificially inflated prices, reaping gross proceeds of $19,365,998. On October 28, 2003, Gilead announced that sales of Viread in the third quarter of 2003 would be materially less than expected because distributors would meet end-user demand for Viread by selling off overstock they accumulated in the second quarter. In reaction to this announcement, the price of Gilead common stock plummeted, falling $7.46 in one day, from a close of $59.46 per share on October 28, 2003 to $52 per share on October 29, 2003.
As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, tthe court issued an order consolidating the lawsuits into a single action on December 22, 2003. On February 9, 2004, the court issued an order appointing lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On April 30, 2004, the lead plaintiffs, on behalf of the purported class, filed their consolidated amended complaint. On June 21, 2004, the Company and individual defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January 4, 2005, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on February 25, 2005 and a third amended complaint on March 11, 2005. On October 11, 2005, the court granted the defendants’ notion to dismiss the third amended complaint with leave to amend. On December 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a fourth consolidated amended complaint. The court heard defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 21, 2006, took the matter under submission and has yet to render its decision. On May 12, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Three days later, on May 15, 2006, the Court entered Judgment and the civil case was terminated. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.
According to a press release dated August 12, 2008, a California appeals court reinstated a securities class action lawsuit on Monday against Gilead Sciences that claimed the drug maker misled investors about demand for its HIV drug Viread, Reuters reports. The lawsuit accused Gilead of fostering demand for Viread by using improper marketing, including aggressively promoting off-label uses for the drug after US regulators ordered the company to stop. The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a San Francisco district court's decision to dismiss the case on the grounds that investors had failed to prove that their 2003 stock losses were related to the off-label sales and to alleged false statements the company made about Viread. "Gilead's fortunes, as reflected in its stock price, depended heavily on Viread's commercial success," the appeals court wrote in its opinion. "Ultimately, 75 per cent to 95 per cent of Viread sales resulted from off-label marketing efforts," the court said.
According to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, on February 6, 2009, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, requesting that the court review the judgment of the court of appeals. In April 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States denied our petition. The case continues before the district court. On February 13, 2009, we filed a further motion to dismiss the fourth consolidated amended complaint on alternative grounds.
According to an article dated June 03, 2009, Citing contradictory witness testimony, a federal judge agreed Wednesday to partially dismiss a consolidated securities class action against Gilead Sciences Inc. but granted the shareholder plaintiffs leave to revise their fourth amended complaint. Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that statements in the complaint by a confidential plaintiff witness – a former Gilead sales representative - were inconsistent with earlier statements in a preceding complaint and could not be relied on. Gilead's motion to dismiss the suit was set for a hearing Friday, but Judge Illston ruled the scheduled oral argument unnecessary and vacated the hearing. She ordered the plaintiffs to file a fifth amended complaint by June 26.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 2836
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Gilead Sciences, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | GILD |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.gilead.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Rick Hartman, et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 11/10/2003 | ||
| Declaration Of Robert S. Green In Support Of Motion To Appoint Terry Johnson Lead Plaintiff | |||
| Type: Declaration | Date on the document: 01/12/2004 | ||
| Exhibit E - part 1 | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/12/2004 | ||
| Exhibit E - part 2 | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/12/2004 | ||
| Exhibit F | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/12/2004 | ||
| Notice Of Motion And Motion To Appoint Terry Johnson Lead Plaintiff | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 01/12/2004 | ||
| Proof Of Service | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/12/2004 | ||
| [Proposed] Order Appointing Terry Johnson As Lead Plaintiff | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 01/12/2004 | ||
| Stipulation And Order Of Lead Plaintiff Applicants To Appoint Lead Plaintiffs And To Approve Lead Plaintiffs' Selection Of Lead Counsel And Liaison Counsel | |||
| Type: Order Appointing LP/LC | Date on the document: 02/09/2004 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Campagnuola | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 11/17/2003 | ||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Sue Kim, et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 11/18/2003 | ||
| Class Action Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Michael J. Booth DDS PC, Profit Sharing & Trust | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 12/23/2003 | ||
| Court Transcript | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 3/14/2006 | ||
| Notice Of Appeal And Ninth Circuit Rule 3-2 Representation Statement | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 6/9/2006 | ||
| Transcript Designation And Ordering Form | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 6/19/2006 | ||
| Appelant's Opening Brief | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Brief | Date on the document: 10/10/2006 | ||
| Notice Of Change Of Address | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 10/10/2006 | ||
| Appeal From the United States District Court For The Northern District Of California Master File No. C-03-4999-MJJ The Honorable Martin J . Jenkins | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 10/17/2006 | ||
| Defendant's Appellee's Unopposed Motion For Extension Of Time To File Answering Brief; Supporting Declaration Of Lori R Ploeger | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 10/30/2006 | ||
| Corporate Disclosure Statement | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 10/31/2006 | ||
| Appleant's Unopposed Motion For 28-Day Extension To File Reply Brief | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 12/15/2006 | ||
| Appellant's Reply Brief | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Brief | Date on the document: 1/23/2007 | ||
| Letter | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 10/25/2007 | ||
| Notice Of Appearance Of Counsel For Defendants-Appellees | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 10/29/2007 | ||
| Acknowledgment Of Hearing Notice | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/01/2007 | ||
| Acknowledgment Of Hearing Notice | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/01/2007 | ||
| Acknowledgment Of Hearing Notice | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/01/2007 | ||
| Declaration Of Grant P. Fondo In Support Of Motion For Continuance Of Oral Argument | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Declaration | Date on the document: 11/01/2007 | ||
| Motion For Continuance Of Oral Argument | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 11/01/2007 | ||
| Acknowledgment Of Hearing Notice | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/02/2007 | ||
| Notice Of Appearance Of Counsel For Defendants-Appellees | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 11/02/2007 | ||
| Plaintiffs'-Appellants' Opposition To Motion For Continuance Of Oral Argument | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/08/2007 | ||
| Declaration Of Jeffrey J. Hessekiel In Support Of Reply In Support Of Motion For Continuance | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Declaration | Date on the document: 11/16/2007 | ||
| Reply In Support Of Motion For Continuance Of Oral Argument | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/16/2007 | ||
| Letter to Ms. Cathy Catterson, Clerk | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/27/2007 | ||
| Opinion from the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Rick Hartman, et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 08/11/2008 | ||
| Mandate from the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Rick Hartman, et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 10/17/2008 | ||
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