Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/16/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: September 01, 2004

According to a press release dated May 18, 2005, the lead plaintiffs have filed a Notice Of Agreed Motion And (Proposed) Order Of Voluntary Dismissal. On May 13, 2005, the United States District Court Judge entered the (Proposed) Order voluntarily dismissing the Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and lawsuit without prejudice.

After further investigating this matter, lead plaintiffs and their counsel concluded that the Complaint should be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), lead plaintiffs notified defendants of their intent, and defendants agreed to the dismissal, with each side bearing its own costs. No consideration has been exchanged, and neither lead plaintiffs nor their counsel will receive any compensation or reimbursement of expenses.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused deCODE's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading statements, including by concealing its continuing internal control problems. As a result of this inflation, deCODE was able to complete a public offering of $150 million worth of convertible notes in April 2004, raising net proceeds of $144 million. The complaint specifically alleges that defendants deCODE, 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 October 29, 2003 and August 26, 2004. 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 Company's period-end financial closing procedures were materially deficient; (2) as such, deCODE, during the Class Period, improperly recognized revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially inflated at all relevant times.

Then, on August 26, 2004, deCODE filed a Form 8-K with the SEC in which it disclosed the resignation of its outside accountant (PricewaterhouseCoopers) and disclosed a 'reportable condition' with respect to deCODE's closing procedures. On this news, deCODE's stock collapsed to $5.70 per share on August 27, 2004, 58% below the Class Period high of $13.80 per share.

NOTE: deCODE is a population genetics company developing drugs and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)-based diagnostics, based upon its discoveries in the inherited causes of common diseases.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: Iceland

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DCGN
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-7050
JUDGE: Hon. Richard J. Holwell
DATE FILED: 09/01/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/29/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/26/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
  2. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  3. Brian Felgoise
  4. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
  5. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  6. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Florida)
  7. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY)
  8. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
  9. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  10. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
No Document Title Filing Date