Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/21/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: July 25, 2016

According to the law firm press release, the complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the clinical hold placed on the Phase 3 trial of aldoxorubicin for STS would prevent sufficient follow-up for patients involved in the study; (2) that, as a result, nearly half of all patients would be censored (excluded) from the progression free survival evaluation; (3) that, in response, CytRx would likely conduct a second analysis; (4) that, as such, the results of the trial could be materially affected and/or approval of aldoxorubicin for STS could be delayed; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about CytRx’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 26, 2016, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2017. On June 14, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint, which they did on June 29. On August 14, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CYTR
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 #: 16-CV-05519
JUDGE: Hon. S. James Otero
DATE FILED: 07/25/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/18/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/11/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-05519
JUDGE: Hon. S. James Otero
DATE FILED: 06/29/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/12/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/11/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
No Document Title Filing Date