Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/07/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 28, 2001

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2004, on June 21, 2004, the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York issued an Order denying the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The time period within which the plaintiffs could appeal the Opinion and Order dismissing the class action complaint expired on July 22, 2004. No appeal was filed by that date. QLT believes that this lawsuit has now been finally concluded.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2004, in January and February of 2001 seven proposed securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common shares between August 1, 2000 and December 14, 2000. On May 3, 2001, the court ordered consolidation of the seven actions. On March 31, 2004 the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the class action complaint with prejudice. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for plaintiffs filed a motion with the same court for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order dismissing the class action complaint.

The original complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and misleading financial information regarding the Company's condition and prospects. Specifically, the complaint charges that during the Class Period defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading financial information, press releases, and other information concerning the demand for Visudyne, a drug made by the Company that was recently approved by the FDA to treat wet age-related macular degeneration ("AMD"), an eye disease that causes blindness in elderly people. On December 14, 2000, QLT announced that it expected to miss its sales estimates for the fourth-quarter ended December 31, 2000. QLT attributed the shortfall to slower than expected growth in demand for Visudyne due to lack of reimbursement from governmental health
administration authorities, private health insurers, and other third party payers for the cost of Visudyne treatment in Europe and the United States. QLT also lowered its sales forecasts for the year 2001. These statements contradicted prior information issued by defendants concerning the demand for Visudyne and the Company's prospects. In response, the Company's common stock price plummeted approximately 31% on extremely heavy volume, losing $12.375 per share from the prior day's close of $40.438 per share. The dissemination of this materially misleading information caused QLT's common stock to be artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. Defendants were motivated to inflate the price of QLT stock so that Company insiders could dump their own shares on unsuspecting investors. Indeed, when the price of QLT stock was at its highest level of the year, defendants Levy and Galbraith sold over 157,000 shares of QLT stock, reaping proceeds of approximately CN$18.32 million.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: Canada

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: QLTI
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. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-00669
JUDGE: Hon. Sidney H. Stein
DATE FILED: 01/28/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/14/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  2. Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA)
    225 Broadway, Suite 1900, Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92010
    619.702.7350 619.702.7351 ·
  3. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  4. 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
  5. Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia)
    1818 Market Street; Suite 2500, Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), PA 19103
    215.496.0300 215.496.6610 · classaction@srk-law.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-00669
JUDGE: Hon. Sidney H. Stein
DATE FILED: 06/18/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/14/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date