According to the law firm press release, the complaint arises out of false and misleading statements regarding the efficacy of Endocyte's experimental drug, VYNFINIT®. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, certain of Endocyte's officers issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business prospects. Specifically, on March 21, 2014, Endocyte issued a press release announcing that the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency issued "positive opinions" for the "Conditional Marketing Authorisations" for the drug VYNFINIT®, used to treat platinum-resistant ovarian cancer ("PROC") with VYNFINIT® using testing methods known as response evaluation criteria in solid tumors ("RECIST"). Endocyte failed to disclose that the "positive opinions" were based on the testing criteria called RECIST 1.0 while the pending analysis for the "Conditional Marketing Authorisations" would be using the more stringent RECIST 1.1 testing criteria. As a result of the defendants' false statements, on March 21, 2014, Endocyte's stock jumped 92%, from $14.64 to $28.17. The complaint further alleges that, in an attempt to take advantage of the Company's stock jump following the March 21 press release, Endocyte issued a public offering to quickly sell shares at the inflated price. By April 2, 2014 the Company issued over 5 million shares, and acquired a net proceed of approximately $101.8 million.
On May 2, 2014 the Company announced that VYNFINIT® was found ineffective in the treatment of PROC based on RECIST 1.1. Upon this announcement, on May 2, 2014, Endocyte stock dropped over 61%, from $17.38 to close at $6.62. On May 19, 2014 the company then announced that it would withdraw its application to sell VYNFINIT® in Europe. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material to potential Endocyte's shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to purchase Endocyte stock.
On January 4, 2016, the Court issued an Order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint, thus this case was dismissed with prejudice on February 2.