Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/22/2013 (Other)

Filing Date: November 09, 2007

The complaint charges Flamel and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Flamel is a biopharmaceutical company that develops polymer-based delivery technologies for medical applications. Its lead product is COREG CR for use in the treatment of moderate to severe congestive heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction following myocardial infarction and hypertension.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, defendants made a series of false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for COREG CR. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were in possession of undisclosed clinical trial data showing that Coreg CR was no more effective than Coreg IR, the twice-daily version of the drug.

On August 23, 2007, in an article entitled “Flamel Technologies Shares Dive on Disappointing Coreg Study Results,” the Associated Press reported that a study of its once-daily heart disease drug failed to show any benefit over the twice-daily version. On this news, Flamel’s ADR price dropped from $12.68 to $9.56 per share. This decrease in Flamel’s ADR price was a result of the artificial inflation caused by defendants’ misleading statements coming out of the ADR price.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, on November 9, 2007 a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers entitled Billhofer v. Flamel Technologies, et al. The complaint purports to allege claims arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain public statements by the Company concerning, among other things, a clinical trial involving Coreg CR and seeks the award of damages in an unspecified amount. By Order dated February 11, 2008, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the action. Pursuant to an agreed-upon scheduling order, the lead plaintiff, on March 27, 2008, filed an amended complaint which continued to name as defendants the Company and certain previously named officers and directors but omitted other persons who had initially been sued and asserted the same claims based on the same events as alleged in the initial complaint. On May 12, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice. That motion has been fully briefed and is awaiting resolution by the Court. None of the individual defendants named in the amended complaint have been served in the action and they did not join in the Company’s motion.

On July 01, 2010, Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure it was stipulated and agreed between and among the parties that one of the defendants be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

On September 20, 2010, the formerly appointed Lead Plaintiff Billhofer's motion to withdraw as Lead Plaintiff was granted, and another plaintiff was substituted as Lead Plaintiff in this action.

On March 6, 2012, the Court issued an Opinion granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On March 8, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. The First Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: France

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FLML
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 07-CV-09920
JUDGE: Hon. Charles S. Haight
DATE FILED: 11/09/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/23/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/22/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 · info@csgrr.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 07-CV-09920
JUDGE: Hon. Charles S. Haight
DATE FILED: 03/27/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/23/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/22/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
No Document Title Filing Date