Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 12/23/2003 (Other)

Filing Date: November 04, 2003

On December 23, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.

According to a press release dated November 4, 2003, the complaint alleges that defendants Titan Pharmaceuticals and certain of its officers and directors 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 December 1, 1999 through July 22, 2002 concerning Titan's
drug, Iloperidone.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants' statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that Titan was aware, through its licensing agreement with Aventis SA, that Iloperidone caused negative cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory reactions; (2) that Titan was aware that Iloperidone was not safe and efficient; (3) that Titan was aware
that the Iloperidone program conducted by Novartis SA was not proceeding well
and would not be completed on schedule; (4) that Titan was aware that
Iloperidone was not a comparable or superior product to its competitors; (5)
that Titan was aware, at the time it entered into the licensing agreement with
Novartis SA for the Japanese marketing rights, that Iloperidone caused negative
cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory reactions; (6) that Titan was aware
that the clinical trial results indicated that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration would require Iloperidone, because of its cardiovascular,
urogenital, and respiratory problems, to be marketed with box warnings and
physician letters; and (7) that Titan was aware that it was not making progress
towards commercialization of Iloperidone because the drug caused
cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory problems.

The complaint further alleges that on July 24, 2001, the Company announced that its U.S. filing for Iloperidone
would be delayed a year. The Company indicated that the delay was necessary to
investigate once-a-day dosing, demonstrate a favorable safety profile when
switching from other antipsychotic agents to Iloperidone, and support the
competitive profile of the compound. This announcement failed to reveal the
real reason behind the Company's delay in its U.S. filing, which was that
Iloperidone caused cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory problems. The
market reacted swiftly to this news, with the Company's stock falling 57%, or
$16.04 to close at $11.95 on July 24, 2001. Then, one year later on July 22, 2002, after the market had closed, the Company
announced the completion of a study conducted by Novartis of the effect of
Iloperidone on the EKG profile of patients. A primary endpoint of the study was
evaluation of the change in QT interval from baseline to week six. The study
indicated that results for iloperidone were roughly comparable to that for
ziprasidone, one of the approved agents in the study. Given these results, the
Company stated that, even if approvable, these results may potentially limit
the opportunity of Iloperidone as first line therapy for schizophrenia. The
market reacted swiftly to this news, with the Company's stock falling 97%, or
$63.63 from a high during the Class Period of $65.26 on September 26, 2000 to
close at $1.63 on July 22, 2002.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TTP
Company Market: American SE
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-4916
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 11/04/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/01/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/22/2002
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. Bull & Lifshitz
    18 East 41st St., Bull & Lifshitz, NY 10017
    212.213.6222 212.213.9405 ·
  3. 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
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  5. 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
  6. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date