Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/21/2007 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: January 27, 2005

According to a press release dated February 1, 2006, EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: EPIX), a developer of innovative pharmaceuticals for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), today announced that Judge Patti Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute the previously disclosed shareholder class action lawsuit against EPIX. Judge Saris issued the dismissal without prejudice after a hearing yesterday afternoon.

The original complaint charges EPIX and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. EPIX (formerly known as EPIX Medical Inc.) is a developer of targeted contrast agents that are designed to improve the diagnostic quality of images produced by magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI"). MRI is an imaging technology for a range of applications, including the identification and diagnosis of a variety of medical disorders.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, by the start of the Class Period, defendants became aware of clinical quality issues with the underlying data for their MS-325 Phase III program. MS-325 is designed to provide visual imaging of the vascular system through a type of MRI known as magnetic resonance angiography. These issues, including the generation of unintelligible imaging scans, made difficult, if not impossible, the proper control of their clinical test results and statistical analysis of the data and results. On December 16, 2003, defendants announced the submission of their New Drug Application ("NDA") for MS-325. Defendants continued to conceal the serious problems with their clinical program, specifically the poor quality of the underlying clinical data and problems with the statistical analysis. Defendants instead made positive and encouraging remarks about their "extensive scientific and clinical development" activities and prospects for product approval.

Moreover, on or around January 14, 2005, the Company reported shocking news about the MS-325 submission. Although defendants sought to place a positive spin on their receipt of an "approvable" action letter from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") for MS-325, the news was far from positive. The FDA had determined that problems with the Phase III clinical trials were so serious that it was impossible for them to come to a conclusion about the efficacy of MS-325. Worse, the FDA noted problems with the underlying data itself, problems that could not be resolved simply on the basis of re-analysis of the data. Thus, defendants delivered a serious setback to investors and, as a result, the price of EPIX stock plunged 27%, to $10.67, for a loss of $3.98 per share, on volume of 11 million shares.


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


Ticker Symbol: EPIX
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 #: 05-CV-10166
JUDGE: Hon. Patti B. Saris
DATE FILED: 01/27/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/14/2005
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
  3. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY)
  5. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
  6. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  8. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
  9. Smith & Smith LLP
  10. Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia)
  11. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
  12. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
No Document Title Filing Date