Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 08/29/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 25, 2003

According to the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, entered on August 29, 2005, from U.S. District Judge Honorable Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the case is settled and the action is dismissed with prejudice.

As reported by the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, on May 6, 2005 the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement of the litigation pursuant to which the plaintiff class would receive $10.4 million in exchange for a complete release of claims set forth in the complaint that arose during the period August 8, 2002 to June 11, 2003. On June 27, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the Stipulation of Settlement, ordered that notice be given to the affected shareholders, and set a date of August 26, 2005 for a hearing on final approval. The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including but not limited to, court approval. On June 24, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval to the settlement, ordered notice to be provided to class members and set a hearing for August 26, 2005 to consider final approval. The settlement will be funded in large part by the Company’s insurance carrier.

Earlier, according to the same SEC filing, four purported securities class actions were filed in the same court, each making identical or similar allegations against the Company, its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer. On November 6, 2003, the various complaints were consolidated into one case by order of the court, and on November 26, 2003, a lead plaintiff, Lance A. Johnson, was appointed. A consolidated complaint titled In re InterMune Securities Litigation, No. C 03-2954 SI, was filed on January 30, 2004. The consolidated amended complaint named the Company, and its former chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer, as defendants and alleges that the defendants made certain false and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The lead plaintiff sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period from January 7, 2003 through June 11, 2003. The Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 2, 2004, which was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 23, 2004, and the defendant filed in a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on October 7, 2004.

The original Complaint charges that Defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements about one of the its leading products, Actimmune. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were aware that demand for Actimmune was declining because: (1) the most recent clinical study showed that Actimmune was not effective in the treatment of certain pulmonary diseases, (2) Actimmune inventory levels were increasing, and (3) doctor demand was falling due, in part, to the Company's decision to curtail physician education, the lifeblood of InterMune's off-label sales of Actimmune. However, despite this knowledge, the Company falsely stated during the class period that it was on course to meet projected revenue figures, which had not been previously reduced to reflect lowered demand for the drug.

The complaint further alleges that on or around June 11, 2003, the Company announced that it was cutting its 2003 revenue guidance figures and slashing projected earnings from Actimmune. The Company also announced it had overstated the number of patients using Actimmune and that, contrary to its earlier
representations, demand for Actimmune from physicians was flat. These
disclosures sent the Company's stock price plummeting to $16.74, a 33%
one-day fall.


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


Ticker Symbol: ITMN
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-2954
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 06/25/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/11/2003
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
  2. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
  3. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
  5. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP (Milwaukee)
  6. Wechsler Harwood LLP
  7. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-2954
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 08/23/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/11/2003
  1. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 ·
  2. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 ·
  3. Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 , Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York), NY 10118
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date