Cellcyte Genetics Corporation - 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

Cellcyte Genetics Corporation Summary: The class action lawsuit against CellCyte for alleges violations of securities laws. According to the complaint CellCyte executives and business partners misled investors by publishing false information about the history and experience of the company’s chief executive officer. The lawsuit alleges that company shares were traded at artificially inflated prices due to the company’s activities.

The company’s chief executive officer’s education and professional credentials were called into question after published news reports called out alleged discrepancies relating to his finance degree from the University of Washington, a CPA designation, ties to the Washington Society of Certified Public Accountants and a strong track record within the pharmaceutical industry. Soon after these reports company stock plummeted 55 percent.

On March 14, 2008, several motions to appoint lead plaintiffs and to approve the selection of counsels were filed. As a result, an order consolidating related actions, to appoint certain individuals as lead plaintiffs and counsels was entered on April, 28, 2008. However, at the same time, certain individuals were denied by the court to be appointed lead plaintiffs by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.

On July 10, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On September 3, 2008, Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted the motion to substitute a lead plaintiff. On November 10, 2008, the defendants filed several motions to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Before any ruling on the motions, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint, which was granted on January 20, 2009. The court denied as moot all the pending motions to dismiss. On February 3, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on March 5, 2009. These motions are currently pending before the Court.

On September 24, 2009, Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted one of the defendant’s motions to dismiss. On March 23, 2010, the action was dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear their own fees and costs.

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

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Cellcyte Genetics Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	CCYG
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.cellcyte.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Lance Armbruster, et al. v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et al.

COURT: W.D. Washington	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-00047
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Robert S. Lasnik
DATE FILED: 01/14/2008	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/06/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/09/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
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 Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (Seattle) 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA, 98101 (voice) 206-623-7292, (fax) 206-623-0594, info@hagens-berman.com Keller Rohrback LLP (Seattle) 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA, 98101-3052 (voice) 800.776.6044, (fax) 206.623.3384, investor@kellerrohrback.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/14/2008
Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, And Early Settlement
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/28/2008
Order Consolidating Related Actions, Appointing The Newbills As Lead Plaintiffs And Appointing Hagens Berman As Lead Counsel
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/28/2008

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re CellCyte Genetics Securities Litigation

COURT: W.D. Washington	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-00047
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Robert S. Lasnik
DATE FILED: 02/03/2009	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/06/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/09/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (Berkeley) 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202, Berkeley, CA, 94710 (voice) 510.725.3000, (fax) 510.725.3000, info@hbsslaw.com Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (Seattle) 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA, 98101 (voice) 206-623-7292, (fax) 206-623-0594, info@hagens-berman.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/10/2008
Order Substituting Jacqueline J. Newbill for Lead Plaintiff James Newbill
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/03/2008
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/03/2009
Stipulation For, And Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/23/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/23/2010

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
Case Name and/or Number: Dominic J. Tolerico, et al. v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/01/2008
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Joe M. Pruitt, et al. v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/01/2008

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

�