According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Valeant had deficient internal controls, (2) Valeant had a relationship with a network of specialty pharmacies used to boost Valeant’s sales of its high-priced drugs; (3) the use of specialty pharmacies left Valeant vulnerable to increased regulatory risks, (4) Defendants were under government scrutiny for its financial assistance programs for patients, pricing decisions and the distribution of its products, (5) Valeant faced the risk of scrutiny over its price increases, (6) without using specialty pharmacies, Valeant’s financial performance would be negatively impacted, (7) without using specialty pharmacies, Valeant’s Class Period performance would have been negatively impacted, (8) Valeant’s true relationship with Philidor and the extent of that relationship, (9) Valeant controlled Philidor, (10) Valeant’s subsidiary KGA had a secured lien interest on Philidor’s ownership, (11) Defendants were engaged in a scheme to manipulate Valeant’s stock price, and (12) as a result, Valeant’s public statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 24, 2016.
On April 28, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
On November 29, 2017 the Court issued a stay. All proceedings and discovery were stayed until the conclusion of the criminal trial in United States v. Tanner, et al., Case No. 17-cr-61, or by order of the Court.
