Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 12/26/2012 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: August 14, 2012

According to the law firm press release, the complaint charges Par Pharma and its Board and TPG with violations of the 1934 Act. Par Pharma is a U.S.-based specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets high-barrier-to-entry generic drugs and niche, innovative proprietary pharmaceuticals.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose material information in a proxy statement filed with the SEC and publicly disseminated in connection with the proposed sale of Par Pharma to TPG. According to the complaint, the proxy statement was materially false and misleading because it made numerous material omissions about the process leading up to the agreement between Par Pharma and TPG and the work performed by Par Pharma’s financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, which was retained by Par Pharma to evaluate the fairness of TPG’s offer.

On October 19, 2012, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases.

On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed Notice voluntarily dismissing this Consolidated Action.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PRX
Company Market: New York SE
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: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 12-CV-05109
JUDGE: Hon. Stanley R. Chesler
DATE FILED: 08/14/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/02/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/14/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Goldfarb LLP
    2501 N. Hardwood Street, Suite 1801, Goldfarb LLP, TX 75201
    214.583.2233 214.583.2234 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date