Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/14/2007 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: March 02, 2005

According to a press release dated August 11, 208, an appeal court has upheld the dismissal of a consolidated securities class action against Biogen Idec Inc. for the 2005 stock drop that resulted when the drugmaker temporarily yanked its multiple sclerosis treatment from the market. A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Thursday denied the plaintiffs' appeal, finding they had failed to show how company executives would have known about the risks associated with the drug Tysabri well before disclosing them to the public in February 2005.

On October 15, 2007, a Notice of Appeal was filed as to the Order on the motion to dismiss. The appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On November 15, 2006, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On September 14, 2007, the Court entered the Order allowing the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, several actions have been consolidated with the Brown case. On October 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint which, among other amendments to the allegations, adds as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, the Company’s Chief Operating Officer, the Company’s Executive Vice President of Portfolio Strategy, and the Company’s former General Counsel.

The original complaint charges Biogen and certain of its current executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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 TYSABRI posed serious immune-system side effects; (2) that TYSABRI, like other MS drugs, made patients susceptible to progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy ("PML") by changing the way certain white blood cells function, thereby allowing PML, a normally dormant virus, to run rampant within the human body; (3) that defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded documented facts that MS drugs can cause greater incidents of PML to occur; and (4) that defendants concealed these facts in order to fast track TYSABRI for FDA approval so that they could reap the financial benefits from the sales of the drug.

The complaint further alleges on or around February 28, 2005, before the market opened, Biogen announced a voluntary suspension in the marketing of TYSABRI® (natalizumab), a treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS), because of two serious adverse events that have occurred in patients treated with TYSABRI in combination with AVONEX® (Interferon beta-1a) in clinical trials. News of this shocked the market. As a result, shares of Biogen fell $28.63 per share, or 42.44 percent, to close at $38.65 on unusually high trading volume.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BIIB
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-10400
JUDGE: Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 03/02/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/18/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/25/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  2. Dyer & Shuman, LLP
    801 East 17th Avenue, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, CO 80218-1417
    303.861.3003 800.711.6483 · info@dyershuman.com
  3. Gilman & Pastor LLP (Saugus)
    Stonehill Corporate Center 999 Broadway Suite 500, Gilman & Pastor LLP (Saugus), MA 01906
    781.231.7850 781.231.7840 ·
  4. 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
  5. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  6. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  8. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 05-CV-10400
JUDGE: Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 10/13/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/18/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/28/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
    299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, NY 10171
    212.894.7200 212.894.7272 · info@entwistle-law.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  3. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
No Document Title Filing Date