Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/09/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: September 03, 2004

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, on May 9, 2005, the plaintiff dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The action is no longer pending.

The complaint alleges that defendants Nektar, 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 March 5, 2004 and August 4, 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 the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that Aventis, one of its main partners in Exubera, prematurely filed an application for marketing approval of Exubera in the European Union with the European Medicines Agency for the sole purpose of fending off a takeover bid; (2) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that Exubera was plagued by ongoing safety concerns, including decreases in lung function and build-up of antibodies that could potentially affect drug absorption; (3) that as a result of these safety concerns, the application for marketing approval of Exubera in the European Union was likely to be rejected; and (4) that despite knowing these facts, defendants approved of the filing because Nektar's revenues and growth prospectuses, which are largely based on royalties and manufacturing payments, are entirely dependent on the success of its partners, who are responsible for clinical development and marketing and because the Company was highly leveraged and needed the European Union filing in order to complete a $199.5 million offering.

On August 5, 2004, Reuters published an article entitled 'EU experts have concerns over Exubera drug-report.' Citing a French medical online news service, Reuters stated an unnamed source heard that European regulatory officials wondered whether the drug could win approval. The original story, from Agence de Presse Medicale, also points to official notes from an April meeting of British regulators that mentioned a certain unnamed diabetes drug up for approval was being met with objections. It is believed that drug is Exubera. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Nektar fell $6.14 per share or 37.01 percent on August 5, 2004, to close at $10.45 per share on unusually high trading volume of over 25 million shares.

NOTE: Nektar is a drug delivery products based company that provides a portfolio of technologies that will enable it and its pharmaceutical partners to improve drug performance throughout the drug development process. As of December 31, 2003, Nektar had ongoing collaborations with more than 25 biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, of which 21 were announced.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NKTR
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 #: 04-CV-03735
JUDGE: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
DATE FILED: 09/03/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/04/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/04/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Green Welling LLP (San Francisco)
    235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, Green Welling LLP (San Francisco), CA 94104
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 · gw@classcounsel.com
  2. 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
  3. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  4. 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