Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/04/2009 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 27, 1999

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.

On March 23, 2009, a Stipulation Of Settlement and a Lead Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Unopposed Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Settlement was entered on the docket.

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.

On July 31, 2009, an order granting a motion for Preliminary approval of settlement and providing for notice and denying without prejudice was entered into the court.

On December 04, 2009, three orders were granted by the court: (1) Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice; (2) Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Expenses; (3) Approving Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DURA
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 99-CV-00151
JUDGE: Hon. John S. Rhoades
DATE FILED: 01/27/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/15/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/24/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  2. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA)
    701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA), WA 98014
    206.521.0080 206.521.0166 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  3. Donovan Miller, L.L.C.
    1608 Walnut Street, Suite 1400, Donovan Miller, L.L.C., PA 19103
    212732.6020 · dmlaw@erols.com
  4. James V. Bashian
    500 Fifth Ave Ste 2800, James V. Bashian, NY 10110
    ·
  5. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
    830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP, NY 10022
    212.317.2300 ·
  6. Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
    One South Broad Street - Suite 2100, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. , PA 19107
    215.238.1700 215.238.1960 · info@kohnswift.com
  7. Lockridge Grindal Nauen & Holstein
    100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200, Lockridge Grindal Nauen & Holstein, MN 55401
    612.339.6900 ·
  8. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  9. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  10. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 99-CV-00151
JUDGE: Hon. John S. Rhoades
DATE FILED: 07/21/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/15/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/24/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego)
    12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4699 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  3. Donovan Searles, LLC
    1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Donovan Searles, LLC , PA 19103
    215-732-6067 215-732-8060 · staff@donovansearles.com
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Los Angeles)
    355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90071
    213.617.9007 213.617.9185 · info@lerachlaw.com
  5. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date