Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/16/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 07, 2003

According to a press release dated March 17, 2005, in February 2005, the lead plaintiffs filed an Agreed Motion and Proposed Order of Voluntary Dismissal in In re Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation. On March 15, 2005, United States District Judge Patricia A. Seitz granted the plaintiffs' Agreed Motion and entered an Order voluntarily dismissing this lawsuit without prejudice.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading statements
regarding the rationale and marketing strategies for approval of MethyPatch(R)
permitted Noven to artificially inflate the value of its technology to
shareholders and thereby minimize the impact of financial uncertainties
relating to serious marketed product issues during the Class Period. Moreover,
it allowed defendants to reap bonuses and insider trading proceeds. The facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from
the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a)
MethyPatch(R) did not possess the safety and efficacy of immediate release oral
methylphenidate products; (b) The utility and advantages for MethyPatch(R) had
been misrepresented by pointing to unmet needs and product advantages that did
not and would not exist by the time Noven expected NDA approval; (c) The FDA
was aware of the reasons why MethyPatch(R) would not be considered as safe or
efficacious as Noven had claimed; (d) Transdermal drug delivery systems have
been the source of serious medication errors that would complicate the
product's contemplated use; and (e) For one or more reasons related to the
safety or efficacy of the product, the MethyPatch(R) NDA submitted on June 27,
2002 would not be "approvable" as submitted. As a result of the defendants'
false and misleading statements, Noven's stock traded at inflated prices during
the Class Period, increasing to as high as $27.45 on June 17, 2002, whereby the
Company's top officers and directors reaped bonuses and insider trading
proceeds, selling more than $500,000 worth of their own shares.


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


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 #: 03-CV-22120
JUDGE: Hon. Adalberto Jordan
DATE FILED: 08/07/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/28/2003
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
  2. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  3. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
  5. Mager White & Goldstein, LLP
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton)
  7. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton)
  8. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
No Document Title Filing Date