Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/03/2008 (Other)

Filing Date: December 20, 2002

On July 3, 2008 Savient Pharmaceuticals announced the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has entered a Judgment affirming the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing, with prejudice, the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint against the Company and three of its former officers. The District Court's decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to set forth particularized facts, through direct or circumstantial evidence, which give rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted with intent to defraud, recklessness or a
conscious disregard of the truth.

As summarized by the docket, the defendants responded to the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint by filing motions to dismiss the complaint. On October 27, 2006, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Harold A. Ackerman granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint with prejudice, and the civil case was terminated. On November 21, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. The appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

According to a press release date October 21, 2005, Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced today that the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Amended Class Action lawsuit, filed on December 20, 2002 against the Company and three of its former officers, have filed a Second Amended Complaint.

In a press release dated August 15, 2005, Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed, without prejudice, the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint filed on December 20, 2002 against the Company and three of its officers. The Court's decision is based, in part, on the failure of the complaint by the plaintiffs, investors who purchased shares of BTG during the Class Period of April 19, 1999 through August 2, 2002, to set forth particularized facts that give rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted with scienter (the required state of mind), had a motive to commit fraud upon the subject investors or acted with conscious disregard of the truth or recklessness. In the Court's dismissal without prejudice, the plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended Consolidated Complaint within 30 days.

As reported in the company's SEC 10-K filing for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003, in September 2003, the actions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel were appointed in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The parties have entered into a stipulation which provides for the lead plaintiff to file an amended consolidated complaint. This amended complaint has not yet been filed.

According to the same 10-K, on December 20, 2002, a purported shareholder class action was filed against Savient and three of its officers. The complaint asserts that Savient’s financial statements were materially false and misleading because Savient restated its earnings and financial statements for the years ended 1999, 2000 and 2001, as reflected in its Form 8-K and accompanying press release issued August 2, 2002. Five virtually identical actions were filed in January and February 2003. On January 23, 2003, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed on behalf of Savient against nine of its officers and directors, its former auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP, and Savient as a nominal defendant. The allegations in the derivative action are substantially similar to the allegations in the purported shareholder class actions. A second purported shareholder derivative action was filed on February 14, 2003 and was consolidated with the first action. This consolidated action was dismissed without prejudice in November 2003. No appeal was taken and the time to file an appeal has expired.

The original Complaint charges BTG and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning BTG's revenue and earnings caused BTG's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. The Complaint alleges that, in order
to inflate the price of BTG's stock, defendants caused the Company to
falsely report its results during 1999, 2000 and 2001 through improper
revenue recognition practices, including recognizing revenue in
shipments to distributors where significant uncertainties existed
concerning realization of the invoiced amounts, which precludes revenue
recognition under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The
Complaint charges that on August 2, 2002, defendants announced that
BTG's 1999-2001 results would be restated to eliminate revenue that had
been improperly recorded. BTG has now restated its results for each of
the years ended December 31, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BTGC
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: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 02-CV-6048
JUDGE: Hon. Harold A. Ackerman
DATE FILED: 12/20/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/19/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/02/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL)
    515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL), FL 33401
    561.835.9400 ·
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
    P.O. Box 25438, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR), AR 72221-5438
    501.312.8500 501.312.8505 ·
  3. Chitwood & Harley LLP
    1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Chitwood & Harley LLP, GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.873.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
  4. Dekel-Sabo Law Office
    Twin Towers 1, 33 Jabotinsky St, Dekel-Sabo Law Office
    972.3.6133310 972.3.6133321 · dekel-sabo@isdn.net.il
  5. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  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. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  8. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  9. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
    1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), PA 19103
    215.496.0300 215.496.6611 ·
  10. Squitieri & Fearon LLP (New York)
    420 5th Avenue, 18th Floor, Squitieri & Fearon LLP (New York), NY 10018
    212.575.2092 212.575.2184 · lee@sfclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 02-CV-6048
JUDGE: Hon. Harold A. Ackerman
DATE FILED: 10/11/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/19/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/02/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Dekel-Sabo Law Office
    Twin Towers 1, 33 Jabotinsky St, Dekel-Sabo Law Office
    972.3.6133310 972.3.6133321 · dekel-sabo@isdn.net.il
  2. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  4. Law Office of Jacob Sabo
    The Tower No. 3 Daniel Frisch Street, Law Office of Jacob Sabo 64731
    01197236078888 011 972 3 607 88 89 · sabolaw@inter.net.il
  5. Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark)
    Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark), NJ 07102-5003
    973.623.3000 ·
  6. Squitieri & Fearon LLP (New York)
    420 5th Avenue, 18th Floor, Squitieri & Fearon LLP (New York), NY 10018
    212.575.2092 212.575.2184 · lee@sfclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date