Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/29/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: October 29, 2003

As disclosed by the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, on October 27, 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered an order dismissing, in its entirety and with prejudice, a purported securities class action lawsuit against Alkermes and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Beginning in October 2003, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in six purported securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On May 14, 2004, the six actions were consolidated into a single action captioned: In re Alkermes Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 03-CV-12091-RCL (D. Mass.). On July 12, 2004, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period April 22, 1999 to July 1, 2002. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleged, among other things, that, during such period, the defendants made misstatements to the investing public relating to the manufacture and FDA approval of the Company’s Risperdal Consta product. The consolidated amended complaint sought unspecified damages. On September 10, 2004, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of the litigation on numerous legal grounds, and the Court referred that motion to a federal magistrate judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for issuance of a report and recommendation as to disposition of the motion to dismiss. The Court heard oral argument on the motion on January 12, 2005. On October 6, 2005, the federal magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation for dismissal, in its entirety, of the above-captioned purported securities class action litigation. After issuance of this ruling, on October 21, 2005, the lead plaintiff and the Company and the individual defendants filed a stipulation with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts providing for dismissal of this action, in its entirety and with prejudice. On October 27, 2005, the Court entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice as provided in such stipulation and terminating the case on the Court’s docket.

The original complaint charges Alkermes and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Alkermes is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of controlled-release drug
delivery technologies and their application to existing or new drug therapies.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants artificially
inflated the price of Alkermes shares by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements about the Company's New Drug Application (NDA) for
Risperdal Consta.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the true facts, which were known by each of the defendants during the Class Period but were concealed from the investing public, were as follows (a) In an attempt to decrease development expenses and speed the product to market,
defendants concealed the deficient nature of the manufacturing process for
Medisorb polylactide-glycolide polymer used to manufacture Risperdal Consta,
resulting in quality management issues and delays in the development program.
(b) In order to conceal lot-to-lot variations resulting from the manufacturing
process for Medisorb polymer, defendants minimized process development and
validation requirements, including the establishment of specifications and
analytical tests necessary to control those variations. (c) Significant quality
issues for the manufacture of Risperdal Consta existed at the Wilmington, Ohio
facility, impacting the ability of the Company to meet clinical development
timelines for Risperdal Consta. (d) In order to avoid disclosure of the serious
deficiencies of the Medisorb manufacturing process, particularly the lot-to-lot
variation in molecular weight for Medisorb polymer, and in order to find a way
to fix the desired molecular weight of the Risperdal Consta finished drug
product, defendants patented a method to degrade the finished product to the
desired molecular weight. (e) Defendants' revenue projections for Risperdal
Consta were grossly inflated based on defendants' concealment of the fact that
Risperdal's adverse effects and safety or tolerability issues worsen when
Risperdal is formulated using Medisorb technology and used as intended. (f)
Defendants concealed that due to the combined effect of the financial
agreements reached with its joint venture partner, Janssen, Risperdal Consta
would not be profitable unless it achieved the high end of sales projections,
an unlikely outcome because of the worsening of Risperdal's adverse effects and
safety or tolerability issues when the drug is formulated using Medisorb
technology and used as intended. (g) The serious safety concerns for Risperdal
oral and Risperdal Consta depot products, such as cerebrovascular effects
in elderly patients, extrapyramidal symptoms, QT interval prolongation and
diabetes, which were detected in clinical trials that went unreported to
worldwide regulatory authorities for long periods, in some cases for studies
completed well before the beginning of the Class Period, were negatively
impacting the regulatory review process. (h) For one or more reasons related to
the known but unmet manufacturing, safety or efficacy requirements for the
drug, the NDA for Risperdal Consta would not be approved on July 1, 2002. (i)
The failure to disclose the defective nature of the Risperdal Consta chemical
and manufacturing controls, clinical program, safety and other issues
preventing the Company from realizing product approval would prevent investors
from learning the extent of the misrepresentations made to them during the
Class Period.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of the defendants' false statements, Alkermes stock traded at
inflated prices during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $70.06 on
February 16, 2000, whereby the Company sold $200 million worth of its own
securities. On July 1, 2002, defendants announced the receipt of a non-
approvable letter for Risperdal Consta. As a result of this announcement,
Alkermes' stock price dropped precipitously over the next two days to a low of
$4.04, or a loss of 93% from its Class Period high of $98 per share, on total
volume of 29 million shares.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ALKS
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. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 03-CV-12091
JUDGE: Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 10/29/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/22/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/01/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. 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 ·
  3. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  5. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
  6. 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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 03-CV-12091
JUDGE: Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 07/12/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/22/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/01/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  3. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
No Document Title Filing Date