Cerus Corporation is a global blood products company.

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 program 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 May 17, 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 June 6, 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.

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.

According to a press release dated August 31, 2006, Cerus (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 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.

On February 16, 2007, 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.