Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/26/2017 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 19, 2015

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the New Drug Application (“NDA”) that Clovis submitted to the FDA for rociletinib contained immature data sets based on both unconfirmed response rates and confirmed response rates; (2) Clovis’ Breakthrough Therapy designation submission contained immature data sets based primarily on unconfirmed responses; (3) Clovis presented interim data publicly and at medical meetings that included a data set based primarily on unconfirmed responses; (4) as the efficacy data matured, the number of patients with an unconfirmed response who converted to a confirmed response was lower than expected; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Clovis’ NDA was likely to be delayed and/or rejected by the FDA.

On February 18, 2016, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on May 6.

An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2017.

On June 18, 2017, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. Preliminary approval was granted on July 14. Final approval was granted on October 26.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CLVS
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: D. Colorado
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02546
JUDGE: Hon. Raymond P. Moore
DATE FILED: 11/19/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/20/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/13/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky LLP (DC)
    1101 30th Street, NW; Suite 115, Levi & Korsinsky LLP (DC), DC 20007
    ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Colorado
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02546
JUDGE: Hon. Raymond P. Moore
DATE FILED: 02/22/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/31/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/07/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Former New York)
    1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Former New York), NY 10019
    212.554.1400 212.554.1444 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Saxena White PA (Boca Raton)
    2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257, Saxena White PA (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.394.3399 561.394.3399 ·
  3. Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP
    370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, CO 80202
    (303) 244-1800 (303) 244-1879 ·
No Document Title Filing Date