On or around 12/04/2019 (Date of last review)
Filing Date: January 24, 2017
According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innocoll’s New Drug Application (“NDA”) submission to the FDA in October 2016 for XARACOLL was incomplete; (2) due to the incomplete NDA submission, XARACOLL would not be approved in 2017 as investors were led to believe; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about Innocoll’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
On May 25, 2017, an amended Complaint was filed. On July 17, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint. On September 5, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended Complaint. On November 5, Plaintiffs filed a second amended Complaint.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Innocoll Holdings plc
Industry: Major Drugs
Ticker Symbol: INNL
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.
First Identified Complaint
Anthony Pepicelli, et al. v. Innocoll Holdings plc, et al.