Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/07/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 20, 2010

According to the press release dated September 21, 2010, the defendants made several statements during the Class Period about the Company's weight loss drug lorcaserin which were false and misleading because they omitted and failed to disclose that tests for lorcaserin indicated that the drug caused cancer in lab rats. When the results of the rat carcinogenicity studies became public on September 14, 2010, the Company's stock fell from a closing price of $6.85 on September 13, 2010, to a closing price of $4.13 on September 14, 2010, a one day drop of $2.72 or roughly 40%, according to the complaint. On September 16, 2010, the FDA's advisory committee held a meeting to review lorcaserin and, according to the complaint, rejected the drug in light of the concern that the potential risks of long-term use, including the risk of cancer, outweighed its benefit. As a result of this news, the Company's stock fell from a closing price of $3.74 on September 16, 2010 to a closing price of $1.99 on September 17, 2010, a one day drop of $1.75 or roughly 46%, according to the complaint.

As summarized by the Company's FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011, beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against us and certain of our current and former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that we and certain of our current and former employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our lorcaserin program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 19, 2010, eight prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead counsel. The Court took the motions to consolidate under submission on January 14, 2011. On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. We expect the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint. In addition to the class actions, a complaint involving similar legal and factual issues has been brought by at least one individual stockholder.

The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on November 1, 2011. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on December 30, 2011.

On March 28, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. On May 13, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.

On November 4, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting without prejudice Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A certain individual defendant was dismissed with prejudice. The Court ultimately ruled amendment would be futile, and thus dismissed this case with prejudice. This decision was appealed on April 18, 2014. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on November 7, 2017.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ARNA
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. California
DOCKET #: 10-CV-01959
JUDGE: Hon. M. James Lorenz
DATE FILED: 09/20/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/11/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/16/2010
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 ·
  2. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA)
    100 Pine Street, 26th Floor, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA), CA 94111
    415.772.4700 415.677.1233 · info@kaplanfox.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 10-CV-01959
JUDGE: Hon. M. James Lorenz
DATE FILED: 11/01/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/17/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/27/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (SF)
    350 Sansome Street, Suite 400, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (SF), CA 94104
    415-772-4700 415-772-4707 ·
  2. 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