According to a press release dated April 19, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that people who file suit claiming securities fraud must show a cause-and-effect connection between a defendant's action and an economic loss, not just an inflated stock price caused by the action. The high court ruling came in a case brought by people who bought stock in Dura Pharmaceuticals Inc. in 1997 and 1998. In the unanimous opinion, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said at the moment the purchase takes place, a plaintiff has suffered no loss. He or she has paid an inflated price, but in turn owns a share that is worth that inflated price, no matter how temporary. Moreover, Breyer said, the link between an inflated price and later economic loss is not particularly strong, since other factors may come into play. The complaint's "failure to claim that Dura's share price fell significantly after the truth became known suggests that the plaintiffs considered the allegation of purchase price inflation alone sufficient," Breyer said. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court ruling and sent the case back "for further proceedings consistent with this (high court) opinion."

On November 6, 2001, the Court entered the Order and Judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second consolidated and amended complaint with prejudice and the case was terminated. Soon after, on December 4, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals. On November 19, 2003, the Court entered the certified copy of the judgment from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversing and remanding the Decision of the District Court and the case was reopened.

The original complaint charges Dura and certain of its officers, directors and its investment bankers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements about Dura's supposedly well-trained and highly effective sales force, strong sales of Dura's Ceclor CD, Keftab, Nasarel/Nasalide, Rondec and Dura-Vent products, and the successful development of its new Spiros drug delivery system. These representations artificially inflated Dura's stock to a Class Period high of $53 in October 1997.

As summarized by the latest docket, on August 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. On June 5, 2006, the Court entered the Order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the third consolidated and amended complaint. On July 21, 2006, the plaintiffs amended their complaint again by filing a Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 5, 2006, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fourth consolidated amended complaint.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on March 20, 2009. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on July 31. On December 04, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement, including an award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and entered Final Judgment.