Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/05/2009 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: May 04, 2004

According to a press release dated September 4, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted final approval to the proposed settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit filed against Genta, Inc. An order approving the settlement on a final basis was issued on May 27, 2008, and the settlement became final on June 27, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On January 23, 2006, the Court entered a Stay Order pending mediation. On May 26, 2006, a motion for preliminary approval of settlement was filed, and later granted in part and denied part by the Order entered on October 11, 2006.

As disclosed by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, in 2004, numerous complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Genta and certain of its principal officers on behalf of purported classes of the Company’s shareholders who purchased its securities during several class periods. The complaints have been consolidated into a single action and allege that the Company and certain of its principal officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding Genasense® for the treatment of malignant melanoma that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company’s securities. The shareholder class action complaint in the various actions seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and recovery of plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees. On September 30, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants engaged in a scheme or artifice to defraud plaintiffs, but allowed plaintiffs’ claims to proceed with respect to their allegations that defendants issued false and misleading public statements about Genasense®. The case has proceeded to discovery.

The original complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants misrepresented the safety of the Company's drug, Genasense, for the treatment of advanced melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

Further, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants falsely represented to the investing public that Genasense did not appear to be associated with serious adverse reactions in the Phase 3 clinical trial. In fact, defendants knew that the use of Genasense was associated with increased toxicity and discontinuations due to adverse events, and that U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of the Genasense New Drug Application was unlikely because the increased toxicity and adverse events associated with the use of Genasense outweighed its marginal benefits.

On April 30, 2004, the staff of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the FDA stated in briefing materials in advance of the May 3, 2004 ODAC meeting that the Phase 3 clinical trial of Genasense failed to demonstrate a survival benefit, which was the primary trial endpoint. However, small but unreliable benefits were seen for progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates (RR). The staff also stated: "Uncertainty also exists regarding whether an improvement in PFS and RR of this magnitude outweighs the increase in toxicity seen with the combination [of Genasense and dacarbazine.]: ... Survival was not improved and toxicity was increased." As a result of this announcement, the price of Genta shares dropped $5.83 or 40.4% to close at $8.60 on the Nasdaq market on an unusually high volume of over 30 million shares traded. On May 3, 2004, the ODAC ruled by a 13-3 vote that, in the absence of increased survival, the evidence presented did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness to outweigh the increased toxicity of Genasense. As a result of this announcement, the price of Genta shares fell more than $3 per share, to close at $5.11 on May 3, 2004 at a high volume of over 17 million shares traded.

On November 05, 2009, an order granting Motion for Disbursement of Funds was entered into the Court’s docket.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GNTA
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. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 04-CV-2123
JUDGE: Hon. G. Donald Haneke
DATE FILED: 05/04/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/10/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/03/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Bernard M. Gross
    1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600, Bernard M. Gross, PA 19102
    215.561.3600 215.561.3000 · bmgross@BernardMGross.com
  3. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  4. Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf
    Park 80 Plaza West-One, Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, NJ 7663
    201845.9600 · info@njlawfirm.com
  5. Geller Rudman, PLLC.
    197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Geller Rudman, PLLC., FL 33432
    561.750.3000 888.262.3131 · info@geller-rudman.com
  6. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  7. 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
  8. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  9. Squitieri & Fearon LLP (New York)
    420 5th Avenue, 18th Floor, Squitieri & Fearon LLP (New York), NY 10018
    212.575.2092 212.575.2184 · lee@sfclasslaw.com
  10. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  11. Vianale & Vianale LLP (former Boca Raton)
    The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road., Vianale & Vianale LLP (former Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.391.4900 561.368.9274 · info@vianalelaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 04-CV-2123
JUDGE: Hon. G. Donald Haneke
DATE FILED: 10/04/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/14/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/03/2004
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. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  3. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (New York, NY)
    825 Third Avenue - 30th Floor, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (New York, NY), NY 10022
    212.838.7797 212.838.7745 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  4. Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf
    Park 80 Plaza West-One, Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, NJ 7663
    201845.9600 · info@njlawfirm.com
  5. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman
    747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, NY 10977
    845.356.2570. 845.356.4335 ·
  6. Law Offices of James M. Orman
    1845 Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Law Offices of James M. Orman, PA 19103
    215.523.7800 ·
  7. Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark)
    Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark), NJ 07102-5003
    973.623.3000 ·
  8. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  9. Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP
    276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, NY 10001
    212.686.8004 212.686.8005 · lawyer@lawssb.com
  10. Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards, LLC (Cherry Hill)
    20 Brace Road, Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards, LLC (Cherry Hill), NJ
    ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date