Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/09/2008 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: November 12, 2004

On May 16, 2008, a Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed by The City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement Systems. However, on June 02, 2008, a motion to dismiss the above mentioned complaint was filed by IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. A hearing date was set for July 07, 2008 on motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint according to an order entered on June 10, 2008. The hearing resulted in an order denying the motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint and was entered by Judge James Ware on July 07, 2008. A preliminary pre-trial conference was set for September 21, 2009 as specified in an order entered on July 09, 2008.

As per Judge James Ware's order on April 17, 2008, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 655 is no longer the lead plaintiff, replaced by the City of
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement Systems.

On February 5, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Consolidated Complaint against Impax defendants, and on July 18, 2007, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

By an Order issued on January 3, 2007, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs have no later than February 5, 2007, to file and serve a Third Amended Complaint.

By the Order issued by U.S. District Judge James Ware on March 1, 2006, the First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs have until April 21, 2006 to file a second amended consolidated complaint consistent with the Order.

According to the Press Release dated November 12, 2004, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused IMPAX shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. As a result of this inflation, defendants were able to engage in an insider trading scheme for proceeds of more than $32 million. On November 3, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing that the “Company has postponed its release of 2004 third quarter financial results to Tuesday, November 9, 2004 in order to allow its independent auditors more time to complete their review of the Company’s third quarter financial statements, including the timing of certain customer credits on bupropion products marketed by a strategic partner.” On this news, the Company’s shares plummeted from $13 to $10.07, a one day decline of 23% on volume of 4.6 million shares. Then, on November 9, 2004, IMPAX announced that its 2004 results would be restated.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IPXL
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-04802
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 11/12/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/05/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/03/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
  2. Dyer & Shuman, LLP
  3. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
  6. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP (Milwaukee)
  7. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
  8. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  9. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  10. Wechsler Harwood LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-04802
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 02/05/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/05/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/03/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date