Company and Case Information

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


Schering-Plough Corporation
Summary: According to a press release dated January 18, 2008, Schering-Plough engages in the discovery, development, manufacture, and marketing of medical therapies and treatments worldwide. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, thereby artificially inflating the value of Schering Plough shares during the Class Period. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company and the other defendants misled investors regarding the increased efficacy of Vytorin, a combination of Zetia and Zocor, over the cheaper generic form of Zocor (simvastatin), alone, and delayed disclosing results of the ENHANCE study demonstrating that Vytorin was not more efficacious than simvastatin.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 2834
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Major Drugs


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Schering-Plough Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: SGP
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.schering-plough.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
F. Richard Manson, et al. v. Schering-Plough Corporation, et al.
 COURT: D. New Jersey  DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-00397
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
 DATE FILED: 1/18/2008  SOURCE: Notice of Filing
 CLASS PERIOD START: 7/24/2006  CLASS PERIOD END: 1/14/2008
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Brower Piven
      The World Trade Center-Baltimore. 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 , Baltimore, MD,
       (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) 410.685.1300, info@browerpiven.com
  • Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein
      6 Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ, 7068
       (voice) 973.994.1700, (fax) 973.994.1744, Info@CarellaByrne.com
  • Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf
      Park 80 Plaza West-One, Saddle Brook, NJ, 7663
       (voice) 201845.9600, (fax) , info@njlawfirm.com
  • Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101
       (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/
  • Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
      650 Poydras St. Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA, 70130
       (voice) (504) 455-1400, (fax) , lewis.kahn@kglg.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  5

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Trial by Jury
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 01/18/2008
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 01/23/2008

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
    Case Name and/or Number: Nancy Kamel, et al. v. Schering-Plough Corporation, et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 02/22/2008
    Verified Derivative Complaint
    Case Name and/or Number: Mary E. Cain, et al. v. Schering-Plough Corporation, et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 02/25/2008
    Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")
    Case Name and/or Number: Michael M. Gradone, et al. v. Schering-Plough Corporation, et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 03/19/2008
    Complaint - Demand for Jury Trial
    Case Name and/or Number: Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, et al. v. Schering-Plough Corporation, et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 4/7/2008

    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