According to the law firm press release, Celladon is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that is focused on the development of cardiovascular gene therapy and calcium dysregulation.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants’ made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding the Company’s prospects for its lead drug candidate, MYDICAR, for treating enzyme deficiency in heart failure patients that results in inadequate pumping of the heart. As a result of these false and misleading statements or omissions, Celladon securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
On April 26, 2015, Celladon announced that the Company’s Phase 2b CUPID2 trial of MYDICAR did not meet its primary and secondary goals. The Company reported that “the primary endpoint comparison of MYDICAR to placebo resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.93 (0.53, 1.65 95%CI) (p=0.81), defined as heart failure-related hospitalizations or ambulatory treatment for worsening heart failure” and the “secondary endpoint comparison of MYDICAR to placebo, defined as all-cause death, need for a mechanical circulatory support device, or heart transplant, likewise failed to show a significant treatment effect.” As a result of this news, the price of Celladon stock fell $11.04 per share to close at $2.64 per share on April 27, 2015, a decline of 80% on volume of 32 million shares.
On June 1, 2015, Celladon issued a press release announcing the abrupt resignation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. Then, on June 26, 2015, before the market opened, Celladon announced the suspension of its plans for further research or development of its MYDICAR program and other pre-clinical programs, indicating there was a possibility that the Company could be liquidated with net cash available to shareholders of $25-$30 million. As a result of this news, the price of Celladon stock dropped $0.85 per share to close at $1.35 per share on June 26, 2015, a one-day decline of 38% on volume of 9 million shares, and a 95% decline from the stock’s Class Period high price.
On October 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of intent not to amend, thus this case was closed on December 15. The above Order was appealed on December 28. On September 17, 2018, the Court of Appeals entered a judgment affirming the decision of the District Court.