According to a press release dated September 23, 2008, the Complaint charges Spectranetics and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and operations caused Spectranetics' stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets and distributes single-use medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures within the cardiovascular system for use with Spectranetics' excimer laser system. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Spectranetics' business and operations were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company lacked effective regulatory compliance controls; (2) that the Company was illegally and extensively marketing its laser and catheters for uses that had not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"); (3) that the Company failed to report to the FDA that tests found its laser caused significant damage to stents it was using in the clinical trial; (4) that the Company illegally tested several products on patients without FDA approval; (5) that the Company lacked effective internal controls; and (6) as a result of the above, the Company's financial results were materially inflated.
On September 4, 2008, Spectranetics shocked investors when reports surfaced that Federal Officials had served search warrants on the Company and NASDAQ halted trading of Spectranetics' common stock. That evening, Spectranetics issued a press release disclosing that the Company was jointly served by the FDA and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with a search warrant relating to the promotion, use, testing, marketing, and sales of certain Spectranetics products, and payments made to medical personnel and an identified institution for this application. The search warrant also requested information about two post-market studies completed during the period from 2002 to 2005 and payments to medical personnel in connection with those studies, as well as information regarding compensation packages for certain Spectranetics personnel.
On this news, NASDAQ subsequently halted trading of shares in Spectranetics, but only after Company shares had already fallen $4.27 per share, or 47 percent, to $4.73 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. The following day, September 5, 2008, shares of Spectranetics were allowed to resume trading and closed at $5.63 per share, a decline of $3.37 per share, or 37 percent, from the September 3, 2008 closing price of $9.00 per share.
On January 16, 2009, an order granting motions to consolidate the cases was approved under the docket No. 08-CV-02048.
On June 15, 2009, an order on the plaintiffs’ appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of selection of co-lead counsel were granted for the putative class.
On August 04, 2009, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff against the defendants was filed in this civil action.
On September 18, 2009, proposed pretrial orders for motion to dismiss and motion seeking judicial notice in support by defendants were granted by the Court.
On January 27, 2010, a petition for writ of mandamus was denied by the Appellate Court.
On February 10, 2010, an order by the lead plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to serve supplemental consolidated class action complaint & memorandum of law in support was granted. On the same day, a supplemental class action complaint was filed by the plaintiffs.
On September 07, 2010, a Stipulation of Settlement was submitted to the Court by the parties.
On September 13, 2010, the Court issued an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Approving the Form and Manner of Notice in this action.
On April 04, 2011, an Order Awarding Attorney Fees and Expenses was issued by the Court, along with an Order Awarding Attorney Fees And Expenses. Lastly, the Court issued an Order Of Dismissal and for Entry Of Judgment dismissing this case with prejudice.