Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/05/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 28, 2004

On May 29, 2008, the hearing was held before Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman regarding the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation and the Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses. According to the minutes of the hearing, the Court approves the Final Class Settlement and takes Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses under submission. Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental memorandum with supporting documents re attorney fees and expenses no later than June 27, 2008.

According to a press release dated November 29, 2007, a hearing will be held on March 26, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 23, Third Floor, United States District Court for the Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, to determine: (1) whether the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above captioned action ("Action") for $4,500,000.00 and accrued interest (the "Settlement Fund") should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the motion of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorney's fees and reimbursement of reasonable expenses should be approved; and (3) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice.

On September 21, 2007, the plaintiffs and defendants filed a Stipulation for Settlement as wells as a Second Amended Complaint. On October 2, 2007, the defendants filed a Stipulation of Settlement. On November 8, 2007, the Court issued the Order preliminarily approving the settlement. The pending settlement is in the amount of $4.5 million.

On November 30, 2004, the Court entered the Order signed by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew consolidated all actions. The consolidated action is referred to as "In re Entropin, Inc. Securities Litigation," Master File No. CV 04-6180 RSWL (CWx). The Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 3, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On February 8, 2005, the Court entered the Order that the motion to dismiss the first and second claims for relief to the first amended complaint is denied, and the motion to dismiss the third claim for relief is granted, with leave to amend. On March 7, 2005, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was later denied in the Order entered on May 4, 2005. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on September 16, 2005. The motion was granted in the Order entered on January 24, 2006. On March 16, 2006, the defendants against filed a motion for summary judgment on loss causation, which was denied by the Order entered on April 26, 2006.

The original complaint charges that Entropin and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the efficacy and timeline for clinical development of its developmental drug Esterom.

Note: The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of stock and warrants in Entropin's March 15, 2000 public offering in which investors purchased units consisting of one share of common stock and one common stock purchase warrant.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ETOP
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-06180
JUDGE: Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew
DATE FILED: 07/28/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/15/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/09/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Catanzarite Law Corporation
    2331 West Lincoln Avenue, Catanzarite Law Corporation, CA 92801
    714.520.5544 714.520.0680 · info@catanzarite.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-06180
JUDGE: Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew
DATE FILED: 09/21/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/01/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/15/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Catanzarite Law Corporation
    2331 West Lincoln Avenue, Catanzarite Law Corporation, CA 92801
    714.520.5544 714.520.0680 · info@catanzarite.com
  2. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York), NY 10118
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · lrosen@rosenlegal.com
No Document Title Filing Date