Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/25/2003 (Other)

Filing Date: November 08, 2001

According to the Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, on May 13, 2002, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, seeking to have the Court dismiss the plaintiff’s Consolidated Amended Complaint. On December 20, 2002, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint for failing to meet the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Court’s order dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint without prejudice but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to attempt to cure its defects. Subsequently, the plaintiffs decided not to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and on February 24, 2003, the parties filed a joint motion for voluntary dismissal of the Consolidated Amended Complaint with prejudice which the Court granted.

The original complaint was filed alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market between March 27, 2001 and November 1, 2001. Throughout the Class Period, the Company publicly touted two of its women's hormone replacement products and represented that sales of these agents would be substantial. These statements, as alleged in the complaint, were materially false and misleading because by November 13, 2000, defendants knew that Novartis Pharma AG ("Novartis"), its exclusive marketing agent in Europe, was not aggressively marketing Noven's two hormone drugs, and that Novartis was instead marketing its own competing drug, Estraderm. On August 2, 2001, Noven issued a press release which only partially revealed the truth, stating that sales to Novartis were weaker than analysts and investors had been led to believe. In response, Noven's stock price plunged by 43%, to close at $18.98 on August 3, 2001. Subsequently, on November 1, 2001, Noven issued a press release which revealed, for the first time, that Novartis had its own hormone-replacement system and would not be converting to Noven's product, that Novartis had excess-inventories of Noven's products and that, as a result, Noven's European sales would decline substantially in the fourth quarter of 2001 and 2002. In response to this announcement, Noven's stock price fell by 33% to $14.89.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NOVN
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. Florida
DOCKET #: 01-CV-4606
JUDGE: Hon. James Lawrence King
DATE FILED: 11/08/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/27/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/01/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego - former)
    402 West Broadway , Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego - former), CA 92101
    619.230.0800 619.230.1874 · info@barrack.com
  2. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  3. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  4. 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
  5. 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 ·
  6. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  7. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  8. 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 ·
  9. 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. Florida
DOCKET #: 01-CV-4606
JUDGE: Hon. James Lawrence King
DATE FILED: 04/11/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/27/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/01/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (former New York)
    170 E. 61st Street, Second Floor, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (former New York), NY 10021
    212.688.0782 212.688.0783 · info@barrack.com
  2. 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
  3. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  4. 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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date