Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 07/06/2011 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 09, 2007

The original complaint charges Nuvelo and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Nuvelo is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the development and commercialization of acute cardiovascular and cancer therapies.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Nuvelo misrepresented its chances of obtaining Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of a purported new blood clot dissolver, alfimeprase. The complaint alleges that despite the fact that 80% of Nuvelo's value was attributed to this drug, the Company's top officers concealed that their own clinical data demonstrated alfimeprase was ineffective in dissolving blood clots.

The complaint alleges that on or around December 14, 2005, the Company announced it had received a Special Protocol Assessment ("SPA") agreement from the FDA, claiming that the SPA would solidify the regulatory pathway to approval for alfimeprase. Defendants also stated their "power calculations" demonstrated alfimeprase's efficacy as a drug candidate. During a January 5, 2006 conference call, defendants confirmed they believed alfimeprase would reach the U.S. consumer market by 2008 and that alfimeprase would generate $500 million in annual sales in the U.S. alone. The complaint alleges Nuvelo's stock price surged on this news and remained inflated throughout the Class Period while Nuvelo issued and sold 7.5 million shares of its common stock in an underwritten offering on January 30, 2006, receiving over $119 million in proceeds.

Then on December 11, 2006, Nuvelo disclosed that alfimeprase had completely failed its clinical trials. During the conference call following the announcement, Nuvelo's CEO admitted that alfimeprase failed to perform better than placebos and that previously reported positive results were due to drug injections washing clots away rather than dissolving them. On this news the Company's stock fell 80%, erasing over $800 million in market capitalization.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were that: (i) Nuvelo had no reliable clinical data suggesting that alfimeprase "dissolved" blood clots when applied to them through a catheter, other than physically washing them away; (ii) Nuvelo had no "power calculations" suggesting alfimeprase would out-perform a placebo as required to demonstrate the efficacy the FDA would demand; and (iii) defendants knew the decision of Amgen, the drug's original developer, to walk away in December 2004 was based on Amgen's educated suspicion (based on clinical data also known to defendants) that alfimeprase would likely not pass FDA muster and thus was not a commercially viable drug candidate.

As summarized by the Company’s Form 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2009, four lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York in February and March 2007. On April 10, 2007, three separate motions to consolidate the cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff’s counsel were filed. On April 18, 2007, Nuvelo filed a motion to transfer the four cases to the Northern District of California. The Court granted Nuvelo’s motion to transfer the cases to the Northern District of California in July 2007. Plaintiffs have filed motions for consolidation, lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in the Northern District of California on November 9, 2007. Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs consolidated complaint on December 21, 2007. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Nuvelo’s motion to dismiss on February 4, 2008. On June 12, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On December 4, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, and granting leave to amend. On January 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging similar claims. On March 24, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 15, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On August 17, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion.

On February 10, 2011, the Court’s January 19, 2011 order was stayed until February 24, 2011. If the Parties do not submit the settlement documents to the Court on or before February 24, 2011, Defendants will submit further briefing on the inadvertent production and will submit unredacted copies of the documents the Court requested on February 25, 2011.

The settlement, in the amount of $8,916,666.70 in cash plus any interest earned, was preliminarily approved on March 24, 2011. The final settlement hearing is scheduled for on June 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On June 20, 2011, the Court issued an Order Approving Plan Of Allocation Of Settlement Proceeds. On the same day,the Court issued an Order awarding attorneys' expenses and awarding compensation for expenses incurred by the Settlement Class Representatives.

On June 20, 2011, the Court issued a Final Judgment And Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice.

On July 6, 2011, the Court issued an Order awarding attorneys' fees.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NUVO
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 #: 07-CV-00975
JUDGE: Hon. Harold Baer
DATE FILED: 02/09/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/05/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/08/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 07-CV-04056
JUDGE: Hon. Harold Baer
DATE FILED: 02/17/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/05/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/08/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
    One Corporate Center, 20 Church Street , Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., CT
    860.493.6292 860.493.6290 · info@snlaw.net
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date