Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/28/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 09, 2004

On March 28, 2007, the Court entered the Orders signed by U.S. District Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The case is now closed.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, on February 7, 2005, a motion was filed to consolidate the three actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On February 18, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants filed a brief response to that motion, reserving their rights to challenge the adequacy and typicality, among other things, of the proposed lead plaintiffs in connection with class certification proceedings, if any. On April 13, 2005, the Court entered an Order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the three actions (as well as each case that relates to the same subject matter that may be subsequently filed in or transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts), appoint lead plaintiffs and approve such plaintiffs’ selection of co-lead counsel. On August 1, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs generally allege securities fraud during the period from November 25, 2003 through December 6, 2004. The consolidated amended complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that the Company and the individually named defendants made materially false and misleading public statements concerning the Company’s business and financial results, particularly relating to statements regarding the commercialization of Plenaxis®, thereby allegedly causing plaintiffs to purchase the Company’s securities at artificially inflated prices. On September 12, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On October 24, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Company’s Motion to Dismiss and the defendants filed a reply on November 14, 2005. On January 17, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss and took the matter under advisement.

The original complaint charges Praecis and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the company, its officer and directors violated securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements that caused the stock to inflate.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the distribution of the Company's flagship drug, Plenaxis, had been severely restricted by the FDA, which significantly reduced the potential market for the therapy; (2) that the Company failed to establish effective messaging to educate physicians about the product's indication and the appropriate patient population; (3) that the Company, despite impressive enrollment numbers in the PLUS program, had difficulties convincing physicians to prescribe the product due to uncertainty over use and concerns over reimbursement; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal control; and (5) that as a result of the above, the defendants' fiscal 2004 projections were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

The complaint further alleges that on December 6, 2004, Praecis provided an update on the Company's commercialization of Plenaxis in the United States. In the update, the Company stated that its had decided to remove its previous short- and long- term sales and earnings guidance, and that it did not anticipate providing further guidance until a consistent trend for Plenaxis sales emerges. The company said it has had trouble educating doctors and convincing them to prescribe the therapy due to concerns over insurance reimbursement. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Praecis fell $.56 per share, or 25.8 percent on December 6, 2004, to close at $1.61 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PRCS
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. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 04-CV-12581
JUDGE: Hon. George A. O'Toole Jr.
DATE FILED: 12/09/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/25/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Dyer & Shuman, LLP
    801 East 17th Avenue, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, CO 80218-1417
    303.861.3003 800.711.6483 · info@dyershuman.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. 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
  4. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  5. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  6. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  7. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 04-CV-12581
JUDGE: Hon. George A. O'Toole Jr.
DATE FILED: 08/01/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/25/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Gilman & Pastor LLP (Saugus)
    Stonehill Corporate Center 999 Broadway Suite 500, Gilman & Pastor LLP (Saugus), MA 01906
    781.231.7850 781.231.7840 ·
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date