Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/15/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 23, 2002

On October 15, 2004, the Court entered the Opinion and Order signed by U.S. District Judge William G. Bassler granting the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action complaint. The civil case was terminated.

The original complaint alleges that prior to the beginning of the Class Period there were reports of 40 cases of pure red cell aplasia ("PRCA") in chronic renal failure in patients taking EPREX, which is manufactured at Johnson & Johnson's Puerto Rico facility and sold in Europe. PRCA is a condition in which the body loses its ability to produce red blood cells, leaving the patient dependent on blood transfusions for survival.

The Class Period begins on April 16, 2002 when defendants released Johnson & Johnson's first quarter results. In the Company's press release and during the earnings conference call held that day, defendants repeatedly attributed the Company's financial performance to the success of EPREX, stating, for example, that "This amazing product has delivered consistent double-digit growth over the past five years. And in the first quarter of this year, we hit a record sales level of a billion dollars." Moreover, defendants discussed the reported incidences of PRCA and assured investors that EPREX "continues to be a trusted brand that people are using, "and that Johnson & Johnson was "working very closely with ... the experts, as well as health authorities in understanding (PRCA), why it occurs. And we're doing whatever we can to understand the risk and mitigate it."

Then, the complaint alleges that defendants' statements during the Class Period, however, were materially false and misleading because defendants knew but failed to disclose that by April 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigation, spurred on by the increasing number of cases of PRCA in EPREX patients, sought a stay of a qui tam (whistleblower) action in order to investigate the allegations regarding the Company's EPREX manufacturing facility located in Puerto Rico. The whistleblower action was filed in March 2000 by Hector Arce, a former employee at the Company's EPREX factory. Mr. Arce contends in the lawsuit that he was pressured to falsify data to cover up manufacturing lapses at the EPREX manufacturing facility, and then was suspended a few days before an expected interview with FDA inspectors. This information, which defendants failed to disclose, was information a reasonable investor would have wanted to know - especially as the reported incidences of PRCA continued to climb during the Class Period - considering EPREX, and its U.S. version, PROCRIT, accounted for over 10% of the Company's revenues in 2001 and was projected to account for 11% of revenues in 2002. The true facts concerning the existence of the criminal investigation of Johnson & Johnson and the allegations of the qui tam action were first revealed in The New York Times on July 19, 2002. That same day, Johnson & Johnson admitted that it was aware of the criminal investigation since April 2002. Once the foregoing information was revealed, Johnson & Johnson shares fell $7.88 per share to close on July 19, 2002, at $41.85, a fall of 16%.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Major Drugs
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: JNJ
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. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 02-CV-03534
JUDGE: Hon. William G. Bassler
DATE FILED: 07/23/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/16/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/18/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark)
    Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark), NJ 07102-5003
    973.623.3000 ·
  2. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 02-CV-03534
JUDGE: Hon. William G. Bassler
DATE FILED: 02/25/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/16/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/18/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.
    210 Summit Avenue, Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., NJ 07645
    201-391-7000 201-307-1086 · kgg@kgglaw.com
  2. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date