 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Viropharma Incorporated Summary: According to the complaint, ViroPharma develops, licenses, and markets pharmaceutical products that address serious disease. The Company's principal product is Vancocin, an antibiotic which is used for the treatment of Clostridium Difficile Associated Diarrhea ("CDAD").
On December 14, 2011, at the beginning of the Class Period, ViroPharma issued a press release which announced the "modernization of labeling" for Vancocin made effective through the FDA approval of a supplemental new drug application ("sNDA"). The December 14 press release quoted the statement of ViroPharma's CEO that: "This new label provides physicians a better understanding about how to treat and monitor patients suffering from the serious and often life threatening infections that require oral Vancocin therapy". According to the December 14, 2011 press release this understanding included "a specific dosing regimen for CDAD."
The Company stated in the December 14, 2011 press release, that, as a result of the changes in the Vancocin label, which provided physicians with a better understanding about how to treat and monitor patients with CDAD: "ViroPharma believes that Vancocin meets the requirements for, and thus has, three years of [marketing] exclusivity, and that generic Vancomycin capsules will not be approved during this period."
The complaint alleges that as a result of the foregoing representations in the December 14, 2011 press release, the market price of ViroPharma stock rose sharply, increasing 17.9% on heavy volume of approximately 4.8 million shares, increasing $4.21 per share, to close at $27.80 per share on December 14, 2011.
On April 10, 2012, the Company announced the FDA had told the Company that Vanconcin's new label "would not qualify for three additional years of [market] exclusivity because it was not a "significant new use or indication." That same day, the Company revealed that the Federal Trade Commission notified the Company that it was initiating an investigation into whether the Company had engaged in "unfair methods of competition" with respect to Vancocin.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants' statements regarding market exclusivity for Vancocin, which recklessly assumed that the FDA would treat its label changes as new "conditions of use," and their failure to disclose these facts, rendered those statements materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of the Company's April 10 revelations that its claim of market exclusivity was denied by the FDA because it was not a significant new use or indication, and the FDA's approval of competing generic drugs, ViroPharma shares declined $6.17 per share or 22%, to close at $22.44 per share on April 10, 2012.
On August 10, 2012, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.
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 | |||||||||||||||||
| Pete Castro, et al. v. Viropharma Incorporated, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 05/17/2012 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/17/2012 | ||
| Order | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 08/10/2012 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 08/10/2012 | ||
| 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