Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/19/2016 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: February 27, 2013

According to the law firm press release, Affymax is a California-based biopharmaceutical company whose primary drug offering is Omontys (peginesatide) Injection for the treatment of anemia in chronic kidney disease in adult patients on dialysis. The Company has a strategic alliance agreement with Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Takeda Global Research & Development Center, Inc. (collectively, “Takeda”), to develop and commercialize Omontys. Takeda is also charged as a defendant in the action.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and financial results. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that 2% of patients who were administered Omontys experienced hypersensitivity reactions resulting in anaphylaxis, a serious and life-threatening allergic reaction, a third of which needed medical intervention – and that 0.02% of those administered the drug experienced fatal anaphylaxis reactions. As a result of these false statements, the Complaint alleges that Affymax stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $27.74 per share in intraday trading on October 17, 2012.

Then, on February 23, 2013, Affymax and Takeda announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) was requiring a total recall of the drug due to reports of anaphylaxis, with the FDA calling it a “serious and life-threatening” allergic reaction in the agency’s statement. “Serious and fatal” hypersensitivity reactions had been reported in some patients within 30 minutes of receiving their first doses of the drug by intravenous injection, the FDA said in its statement. On this news, the price of Affymax stock declined by more than 85%, closing at $2.42 per share, down $14.10 per share from the prior night’s close, on unusually high trading volume.

On May 2, 2013, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case against all defendants without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) in lieu of other plaintiffs asserting similar facts and claims.

On May 21, 2013, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff satisfying the requirements pursuant to Section 211)(a)(3)(13)(iii) of the PSLRA. Lead Plaintiff, pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the PSLRA, selected and retained the law firm of Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Counsel and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg as Liaison Counsel.

On July 22, 2013, Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws.

On January 21, 2014, the Court issued an Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On February 18, 2014, the Court granted a 90 day stay in this case for the parties to enter settlement discussions. On May 22, the Court issued an order extending this stay until June 20.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AFFY
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 #: 13-CV-00891
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 02/27/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/08/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/22/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-01025
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 07/22/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/08/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/22/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago)
    10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago), IL 60603
    312.377.1181 312.377.1181 ·
  3. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date