 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
GlaxoSmithKline PLC Conclusion: On September 04, 2008, a notice of appeal was filed by the Plaintiffs. On October 10, 2008, a mandate was made withdrawing the notice of appeal.
The Court appointed Avon as lead plaintiff, on October 5th, ahead of a group of competing German investors that had also sought to be appointed the lead plaintiffs. US securities law firm, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman and Robbins LLP has been appointed lead counsel in the case. This is the first time that a UK local authority Pension Fund has been appointed lead plaintiff in a case against a UK listed company. On November 13, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss one month later, on December 13, 2007. After hearing arguments on the motion, the judge granted the request for dismissal and denied plaintiffs' request to replead, citing that "plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead scienter, and the statements plaintiffs identify as false and misleading are forward-looking statements and thus are not actionable." On May 28, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the Order on the Motion to Dismiss. On August 12, 2008, an Opinion And Order was made denying the Motion for Reconsideration on the Order on Motion to Dismiss, filed by the Plaintiffs.
The original Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants, GlaxoSmithKline PLC and certain of its officers, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding Avandia, GSK's popular diabetes drug. In particular, the Complaint alleges that GSK failed to adequately disclose the fact that it had performed a meta-analysis (a pooled analysis of several clinical trials) related to Avandia which showed an increased risk of heart attacks. Preliminary results of this analysis were presented to the FDA in September 2005 and updated results were disclosed to the FDA in August 2006. However, the results of GSK's meta-analysis were never adequately disclosed to the investing public.
As alleged in the Complaint, on May 21, 2007, before the close of trading, the results of a meta-analysis on Avandia conducted by a doctor with the Cleveland Clinic was reported and published in the New England Journal of Medicine (the "Journal"). Similar to GSK's meta-analysis conducted in 2005 and 2006, the results of the meta-analysis published in the Journal revealed that Avandia increased the risk of heart attacks and possibly heart-related deaths. As a result of the reports regarding the meta-analysis, the price of GSK securities declined US$4.53 per share, or 7.8%, to close at US$53.18 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 2834
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Major Drugs
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | GlaxoSmithKline PLC |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | GSK |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.gsk.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Leon D. Borochoff, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 06/11/2007 | ||
| Opinion and Order of Appointment | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 10/05/2007 | ||
| The City Of Tallahassee Pension Plan's Response To The Motion Of The German Investors Group For Reargument And Reconsideration Of The Court's October 5, 2007 Order | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/08/2007 | ||
| Memorandum Endorsement | |||
| Type: Memorandum | Date on the document: 11/27/2007 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| Leon D. Borochoff, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 11/13/2007 | ||
| Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 12/13/2007 | ||
| Opinion & Order | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 5/9/2008 | ||
| Judgment | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 5/13/2008 | ||
| Notice Of Motion For Reconsideration Of The Court's Opinion And Order, Dated May 9, 2008 | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 5/28/2008 | ||
| Opinion And Order | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 8/8/2008 | ||
| Notice Of Appeal | |||
| Type: Notice of Appeal | Date on the document: 8/25/2008 | ||
| Notice Of Appeal | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 9/4/2008 | ||
| Mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 9/24/2008 | ||
| Mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 10/10/2008 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 10/10/2008 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
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