Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/15/2011 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: December 21, 2010

According to a press release dated December 22, 2010, During the Class Period, Greenwood made several misstatements concerning Geron’s funding. Defendant Greenwood twice stated that Geron was funded for the “near-term,” trumpeting the amount of cash the Company had on hand, which he put at $156 million at the end of July, 2010 and $146 million at the end of October, 2010. Significantly, Defendant Greenwood stated that Geron had a “running net burn number” of $48 million annualized in October, 2010, and $48 to $50 million annualized in July, 2010. Accordingly, the Company should have been funded for 3 years.

Yet, in an about-face, only 5 weeks after Greenwood’s October 2010 statement, on December 6, 2010, after the market closed, Defendants announced an $87 million secondary public offering (the “Offering”) – which, with the underwriters over-allotment became a $93 million offering. On December 7, 2010, Defendants announced the pricing of the Offering – at $5.00 per share, when Geron shares were trading at $6.12 per share on December 6, 2010. After the December 6, 2010 after-market disclosure and the December 7, 2010 statement, Geron stock fell almost 20% in heavy trading, from a December 6, 2010 close of $6.12 to a December 7, 2010 close of $5.

According to the Company's FORM 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010, the case was voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, on February 14, 2011, which dismissal was so ordered by the Court on February 15, 2011.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GERN
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-05822
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 12/21/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/30/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2010
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 ·
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date