Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 06/04/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 11, 2017

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Ophthotech made overtly positive representations about the effectiveness and potential of its treatment Fovista when used in combination with Lucentis, a commercially available anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent, despite awareness that the phase 3 clinical trial of Fovista would fail to achieve its primary endpoint of change in best corrected visual acuity from baseline at 12 months over Lucentis alone. The complaint further alleges that these statements caused Ophthotech stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

On December 12, 2016, Ophthotech announced that the trial had failed to achieve its primary endpoint, and that Fovista and Lucentis demonstrated a non-statically significant improvement over patients only receiving Lucentis. Following this news, shares of Ophthotech fell approximately 86% to close at $5.29.

On March 13, 2018, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. On June 4, Lead Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed two of the individual Defendants and filed a consolidated amended Complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: OPHT
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00210
JUDGE: Hon. Vernon S. Broderick
DATE FILED: 01/11/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/11/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/12/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky (Stamford)
    733 Summer Street, Suite 304, Levi & Korsinsky (Stamford), CT 06901
    203-992-4523 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00210
JUDGE: Hon. Vernon S. Broderick
DATE FILED: 06/04/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/02/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/12/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date