According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants issued false and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Peregrine’s business and financial prospects, including that: (1) there were major discrepancies between some patient sample test results and patient treatment code assignments; (2) as such, the clinical data from the Company’s randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled Phase II trial of bavituximab in second-line non-small cell lung cancer was unreliable; and (3) as result of the foregoing, the defendants’ positive statements about Peregrine’s business, operations, and prospects, including those statements relating to the clinical data from the Company’s randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled Phase II trial of bavituximab in second-line non-small cell lung cancer lacked a reasonable basis.
On September 24, 2012 Peregrine disclosed that during the course of preparing for an end-of-phase II meeting with regulatory authorities and following recent data announcements from its randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled Phase II trial of bavituximab in second-line non-small cell lung cancer, the Company discovered major discrepancies between some patient sample test results and patient treatment code assignments. Moreover, Peregrine informed investors that they should no longer rely on clinical data that the Company had previously reported from its Phase II bavituximab trial in patients with second-line non-small cell lung cancer.
On this news, the Company's shares declined $4.23 per share, or 78.48%, to close on September 24, 2012, at $1.16 per share, on unusually heavy volume.
On February 5, 2013, the Court consolidated all related actions and all subsequent papers, pleadings, and motions shall be filed under the low numbered case, Anderson v. Peregrine Pharmaceutical, Inc. CV 12-1647. The Court also appointed James Fahey as lead plaintiff, Gainey & McKenna as lead counsel, and Stull, Stull & Brody as liaison counsel.
On August 23, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Consolidated Complaint for failure to adequately plead scienter. Plaintiff subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint. On November 22, 2014, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint, holding that Plaintiff had again failed to adequately plead scienter. Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on January 22, 2014.
On May 1, 2014, in an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss the Court GRANTED the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, without leave to amend.