Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/24/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: October 24, 2003

According to the docket dated February 28, 2005, on February 23, 2005, a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed by defendants. Lead plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action and this dismissal is with prejudice as to lead plaintiff only.

On November 2, 2004, the Court granted defendants' motion to transfer case to the Central District of California and the case was transferred on November 24, 2004.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between February 19, 2002 and September 24, 2003.

Specifically, the action alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements with respect to the drug Abraxane, a reformulated version of Taxol, under development for the treatment of breast cancer. Throughout the Class Period, defendants touted Abraxane as a safer and more effective alternative to Taxol, the world's best-selling chemotherapy drug for cancer. Defendants claimed that clinical studies had indicated that: (1) Abraxane could be administered without Cremophor, a toxic substance with severe side-effects that limited the tolerable dose and effectiveness of Taxol; (2) unlike Taxol,
Abraxane could be administered without the need for potentially harmful steroid pre-medication and other drugs that reduce the loss of white blood cells; (3) because Abraxane was not formulated with a toxic substance it could be delivered in much higher doses than Taxol and was therefore more effective than Taxol with respect to reduction in tumor size; and (4) because it can be injected intravenously directly to the location of the tumor, Abraxane therapy is only one-half hour, compared to 3 hours for Taxol. The Company stated, repeatedly, that studies indicated that "ABI-007 (Abraxane) is apparently well tolerated" at high doses (. . .) without the need for steroid premedication and G-CSF support.

Further, the complaint alleges that on September 24, 2003 defendants issued an ostensibly positive news release to announce the preliminary results of Phase III testing of Abraxane. However, commentators noted that the news release did not include the data underlying the trial results, and that the trial lacked a common safeguard known as double blinding designed to prevent research bias, since doctors and patients both knew whether Abraxane or Taxol was in use. Moreover, in the release APP narrowed some of its claims for Abraxane, stating not that Abraxane was well tolerated without the need for steroid premedication and G-CSF support (to reduce loss of white blood cells) but rather, noted the absence of "severe hypersensitivity reactions despite no routine pre-medication in patients receiving Abraxane" and stated that the procedure was to administer Abraxane "without routine steroid pretreatment or growth factor support." The lack of backup data, and the distinction between "no steroid pretreatment" and "no routine steroid pretreatment" was not lost on investors; as the market digested the release and its implications, APP's share price fell 32% from a Class Period high of $44.14 on September 24, 2003 to a closing price of $29.59 on September 26, 2003. Two trading days before the announcement --- but after APP had seen the Phase III trial results --- defendant Patrick Soon-Shiong ("Soon-Shiong") disposed of 300,000 shares of his personally held APP stock while the stock was trading at between $38.68 and $35.47.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: APPX
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. Illinois
DOCKET #: 03-CV-7525
JUDGE: Hon. Ronald A. Guzman
DATE FILED: 10/24/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/19/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/24/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  3. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  4. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  5. Kenneth A. Elan (Chicago )
    30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Kenneth A. Elan (Chicago ), IL 60602
    312782.4880 · mmiller@millerfauchner.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. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
    335 Central Avenue, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence), NY 11559
    516.374.0707 516.295.3473 · securitiesfraud@comcast.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. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC

    800-470-6824 312-621-1750 ·
  10. Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C.
    200 N LaSalle St Ste 2100, Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C., IL 60601
    312.346.3100 ·
  11. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  12. 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: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 03-CV-7525
JUDGE: Hon. Ronald A. Guzman
DATE FILED: 05/10/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/25/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/24/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  2. Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
    100 Park Avenue, Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., NY 10017
    212.907.0800 212.684.6083 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date