Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/25/2010 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: April 19, 2000

By the Order dated July 6, 2001, the Court appointed David Berlin and Vinh Voung as the Lead Plaintiffs in the Action and approved their choice of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP as Lead Counsel and Hurwitz , Sagarin & Slossberg, LLC as Liaison Counsel in the Action. On August 20, 2001, Lead Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. October 5, 2001, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. By Order dated March 31, 2003, the Court denied Defendants' motions to dismiss. The parties have completed fact discovery and have exchanged expert reports. On December 21, 2004, the Defendants have moved for summary judgment. On March 31, 2005, the Judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. On June 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for approval of their proposed notice of pendency of class action which was later approved in the Order dated December 14, 2005. On March 27, 2006, the Court entered the Order denying the defendant’s the motion for summary judgment without prejudice. Presently, the Court is awaiting the submission of the stipulation of settlement.

According to Appelera (formerly PE) Corporation’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, the Company and some of its officers are defendants in a lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Applera-Celera stock in the Company’s follow-on public offering of Applera-Celera stock completed on March 6, 2000. In the offering, we sold an aggregate of approximately 4.4 million shares of Applera-Celera stock at a public offering price of $225 per share. The lawsuit, which was commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May 2000, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on August 21, 2001. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to providing patent protection to our genomic-based products. Although Celera Genomics has never sought, or intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the complaint also alleges that we did not adequately disclose the risk that Celera Genomics would not be able to patent this data. The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission, costs and expenses, and other relief as the court deems proper. On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as a class action.

The original complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus issued in conjunction with the Secondary Offering were materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose that Celera had engaged in discussions with the Human Genome Project (an international research organization supported by the U.S. and U.K. governments, among others) concerning collaborating on completing
the map of the human genome and that those discussions had terminated in
December 1999 because the Human Genome Project was opposed to Celera's demands for five-year exclusive rights to the data.

On March 18, 2010, a Stipulation and Agreement Of Settlement was entered into the Court's docket.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CRA
Company Market: New York SE
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: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 00-CV-00705
JUDGE: Hon. Christopher F. Droney
DATE FILED: 04/19/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/29/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/14/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia)
    Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 , Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia), PA 19103
    215.963.0600 215.963.0838 · info@barrack.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  3. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  4. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
    1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), PA 19103
    215.496.0300 215.496.6611 ·
  5. 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: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 00-CV-00705
JUDGE: Hon. Christopher F. Droney
DATE FILED: 08/20/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/29/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/14/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hurwitz & Sagarin
    147 North Broad St., Po Box 112, Hurwitz & Sagarin, CT 06460-0112
    203.877.8000 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date