Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/16/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 08, 2003

On February 16, 2006, the Honorable Judge Jeremy Fogel issued a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, thereby approving the proposed settlement of $6,000,000. The case is now effectively closed.

On September 8, 2006, a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement was filed, and the settlement was preliminarily approved by the Order entered on November 21, 2006.

According to a press release dated August 31, 2006, Cerus Corporation (CERS) announced that it has reached agreements to settle the Federal securities class action litigation that has been pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the related shareholders derivative lawsuit against certain current and former Cerus directors and officers, in the Superior Court for the County of Contra Costa. The class action and derivative lawsuits each consolidated cases that were filed in 2003 and 2004. Under terms of the settlements, which are subject to court approval, all claims against the company and other defendants will be dismissed in their entirety without admission of liability or wrongdoing by any party. In connection with the settlement of the derivative litigation, the company agreed to adopt certain corporate governance measures. The total cash settlements will be funded entirely by insurance carriers under its directors and officers liability insurance policy and will have no financial impact on Cerus.

On March 23, 2004, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and granting in part and denying in part the motion for consolidation. On May 24, 2004, a Consolidated Complaint was filed, and on June 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. On January 20, 2005, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. On March 21, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. On May 24, 2005, the plaintiffs further filed a Third Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Consolidated Complaint.

The original complaint charges Cerus and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of Cerus stock by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements about the company's development programme for the Intercept Blood System for Red Blood Cells (Intercept RBC), a system that applies Helinx technology for the treatment of red blood cell concentrates.

The complaint further alleges that Cerus claimed that its Helinx technology for the treatment of RBC concentrates was represented by a family of novel small molecules that could target and crosslink nucleic acids of pathogens. The complaint alleges that Cerus claimed that when S-303, one of the novel Helinx compounds, was added to blood or blood components, it would cross through cell walls or viral membranes, and then bind to and crosslink these foreign nucleic acids (DNA or RNA). Cerus claimed that this action prevented the replication of the undesired viruses, bacteria and other pathogens, cutting off their capacity to cause infection. Cerus claimed that since red blood cells do not contain nuclear DNA or RNA, S-303 and other Helinx compounds could be safely added to RBC concentrates. Cerus also stated that its Helinx technology represented a selective and targeted approach to the inactivation of the undesired viruses, bacteria and other pathogens and a way to assure the safety of the blood supply. As a result of the defendants' false statements, Cerus stock traded at inflated prices during the Class Period, causing millions of dollars of damages to the Class. On 17 May 2001, just as Cerus stock had inflated to a price of $59/share, the company sold $78 M of its own securities via a secondary offering. On 6 Jun 2003, the company again sold an additional $54.3 M worth of its own securities. The individual defendants also took advantage of the inflated value of Cerus stock to sell their own shares for proceeds of over $5.8 M.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CERS
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-5517
JUDGE: Hon. Richard Seeborg
DATE FILED: 12/08/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/25/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/03/2003
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. Green & Jigarjian LLP
    235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, Green & Jigarjian LLP, CA 94104
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 ·
  4. 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
  5. 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 ·
  6. 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
  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
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-5517
JUDGE: Hon. Richard Seeborg
DATE FILED: 05/24/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/19/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/30/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date