Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/03/1999 (Other)

Filing Date: June 22, 1998

As reported by the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1999, the class action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by lead plaintiffs' counsel on May 3, 1999.

According to the docket posted, the court ordered the consolidation of all cases on August 25, 1998 under the lead case 98-CV-1146. The consolidated complaint was never filed.

The Complaint alleges that defendants falsely represented that there was a statistically significant difference in complete wound closure rate in patents with diabetic foot ulcers who were treated with Dermagraft compared to control patients. In fact, the Complaint alleges, the difference was not statistically significant by standard statistical measures. As a result, the Dermagraft study data did not meet the standards for approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA"). Moreover, more patients treated with Dermagraft needed wound site surgery than control patients and Dermagraft-treated patients had a higher infection rate. On June 11, 1998, Advanced Tissue announced that the FDA had determined that the Dermagraft study data was inadequate for marketing approval. Following that announcement the price of Advanced Tissue stock, which was as high as $17 per share during the Class Period, fell to less than $3.85 per share, from more than $7 per share the previous day, on volume of
almost 7.5 million shares.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ATIS
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 #: 98-CV-1146
JUDGE: Hon. Judith N. Keep
DATE FILED: 06/22/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/13/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/11/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. 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
  3. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
No Document Title Filing Date