Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/30/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: June 03, 2015

According to the law firm press release, Puma is a development stage biopharmaceutical company, focusing on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of products to enhance cancer care. The Company’s lead product candidate is an investigational drug known as PB272 (“neratinib”), which the Company had touted as an extended adjuvant treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (“HER2”)-positive metastatic breast cancer.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s NDA filing would be for a positive early stage breast cancer indication, instead of the previously announced metastatic breast cancer; (2) Puma would need to submit additional safety data from preclinical carcinogenicity studies with its NDA filing, which Puma did not have; (3) the additional required studies would necessarily push the timeline for filing the NDA into the first quarter of 2016; (4) the Company overstated results from its Phase III ExteNET Trial; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its outlook, including in its financial statements and about the ongoing ExteNET trial.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on October 16, 2015.

On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PBYI
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-00865
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford
DATE FILED: 06/03/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/23/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/13/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-00865
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford
DATE FILED: 10/16/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/22/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/29/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date