Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/22/2012 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 09, 2010

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s drug Dimebon. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements to the investing public about the effectiveness of Dimebon as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, making it impossible for shareholders to gain a meaningful or realistic understanding of the drug’s progress toward FDA approval and market success. Then, on March 3, 2010, before the market opened, defendants were forced to publicly disclose that Dimebon did not meet primary and secondary goals in a Phase 3 trial for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. As a result of this news, Medivation’s stock plummeted $27.15 per share to close at $13.10 per share on March 3, 2010 – a one-day decline of 67% on volume of 45 million shares.

According to the Companys Form 10-K For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010, on March 9, 2010, the first of three purported securities class action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuits are largely identical and allege violations of the Securities Exchanges Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to dimebon. The plaintiffs allege among other things that we disseminated false and misleading statements about the effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, making it impossible for stockholders to gain a realistic understanding of the drug’s progress toward FDA approval. The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an award of its costs and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between July 17, 2008 and March 2, 2010. On September 17, 2010, the court entered an order consolidating the actions and setting a discovery and briefing schedule for issues related to appointment of a lead plaintiff. At the end of December 2010, plaintiffs submitted a briefing on the issues related to appointment of a lead plaintiff. Following the court’s consideration of this briefing, an order appointing a lead plaintiff will be entered. Once a lead plaintiff is appointed, the plaintiffs will have 30 days to file their consolidated, amended complaint.

According to a Memorandum and Order entered on April 8, 2011, in accordance with the court's earlier order finding Catoosa to be the presumptive lead plaintiff and the court's March 22 order, this court hereby appoints Catoosa Fund, LP as lead plaintiff and Bernstein Liebhard LLP as lead counsel in these consolidated actions. Lead plaintiff shall file a consolidated amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing of this order.

On May 9, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Consolidated and Amended Complaint, expanding the class period. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 8, 2011.

On August 18, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend.

On March 22, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, and dismissed this case with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MDVN
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 #: 10-CV-00998
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel
DATE FILED: 03/09/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/17/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/02/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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/
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  3. Law Offices of James M. Orman
    1845 Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Law Offices of James M. Orman, PA 19103
    215.523.7800 ·
  4. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 10-CV-00998
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel
DATE FILED: 05/09/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/21/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/02/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard LLP (New York)
    10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.779.1414 212.779.1414 ·
No Document Title Filing Date