Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/13/2013 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 27, 2009

According to a press release dated August 27, 2009, the complaint charges Immucor and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Immucor develops, manufactures and sells a complete line of reagents and automated systems used primarily by hospitals, clinical laboratories and blood banks in a number of tests performed to detect and identify certain properties of the cell and serum components of human blood prior to blood transfusion.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants materially misrepresented the Company’s business operations. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Immucor was operating in violation of the federal antitrust laws of the United States.

The complaint further alleges that on April 24, 2009, the Company issued a press release, which stated in part: “Immucor, Inc., a global leader in providing automated instrument-reagent systems to the blood transfusion industry, today announced that it received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, requesting documents for the period beginning September 1, 2000 through the present, pertaining to an investigation of possible violations of the federal criminal antitrust laws in the blood reagents industry. Immucor intends to fully cooperate with the investigation.”

On January 14, 2010, an order for consolidation, appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel was granted by the Court.

On April 02, 2010, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff against the defendants.

On 30 March, 2011, the parties have agreed to mediation. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was denied without prejudice.

The Court released an order and opinion on June 30, 2011, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court first addressed the allegations that the defendant released material misrepresentations and omissions when it reiterated its commitment to quality and continued compliance with FDA regulations. The Court found that the statements were sufficient to allege a material misrepresentation under Rule 10b-5. Further, the plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient under the pleading standards of PSLRA for scienter, showing that the defendants were at least reckless as to their quality and FDA violations. However, the Court held that the plaintiff could not show it bought shares before the beginning of the class period or sold shares during the class period. Although share prices fell after disclosure of the alleged misrepresentations, they quickly rebounded to above pre-disclosure levels. Therefore, the Court held that the Plaintiffs did not show loss causation necessary for a Section 10(b) claim.

The Court also dismissed the Section 10(b) claim that the defendants omitted facts surrounding illegal anti-trust activities. Specifically, the plaintiff’s failed to allege facts sufficient to infer that defendants had an agreement constituting anti-trust violations. Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to allege loss causation. Section 20(a) allegations against the individual defendants can only survive if the underlying substantive allegations pass the motion to dismiss stage. Since the Court dismissal all Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims, it also dismissed the Section 20(a) allegations.

The plaintiff filed a motion on July 29, 2011, for reconsideration of the order on the motion to dismiss. This motion was denied on August 29, 2011. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on September 28, 2011.

On October 02, 2012, The Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals granted a Joint motion to stay appeal proceedings through November 30, 2012.

On March 6, 2013, an Order Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement between the parties was issued by the Court.

On June 13, 2013, the Court approved the Plan of Allocation of net settlement fund, awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $949,596.82 plus interest to Lead Counsel, and approved the request for reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $102,643.33. The Court issued a judgment terminating the case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BLUD
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. Georgia
DOCKET #: 09-CV-02351
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas W. Thrash, Jr
DATE FILED: 08/27/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/19/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/23/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Atlanta)
    3424 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 1650, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Atlanta), GA 30326
    404.504.6500 404.504.6500 ·
  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/
  3. Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C.
    25800 Northwestern Highway, 1000 Maccabees Center, Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C., MI 48075-1000
    248.746.0700 248.746.0700 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Georgia
DOCKET #: 09-CV-02351
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas W. Thrash, Jr
DATE FILED: 04/02/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/19/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/25/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York)
    850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York), NY 10022
    212.687.1980 212.687.1980 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date