Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/10/2016 (Other)

Filing Date: October 10, 2014

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges Arrowhead materially misstated clinical trial information from its experimental hepatitis B therapy ARC-520 by falsely suggesting that the Company's therapy was more effective than it actually was. On October 8, 2014, Arrowhead Research released disappointing data from its experimental hepatitis B therapy ARC-520. On that same day, an article published on TheStreet.com reported that Arrowhead Research's CEO and his team knew for months that ARC-520 dosed at 1 mg/kg and 2 mg/kg yielded 0.2-log and 0.3-log reductions in hepatitis B viral load. Yet, Arrowhead executives led investors to believe that ARC-520 was more potent and achieved viral load reductions in the range of 0.7 log or higher. On this news, shares of Arrowhead Research fell $5.48 per share, or over 43%, to close at $7.03 per share.

On March 29, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs did not do so, thus this case was ordered dismissed with prejudice on September 12. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the above Order on October 10, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ARWR
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 14-CV-07890
JUDGE: Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
DATE FILED: 10/10/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/12/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/08/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 14-CV-07890
JUDGE: Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
DATE FILED: 03/06/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/12/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/08/2014
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
  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