Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 06/02/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 31, 2017

According to the law firm press release, Regulus is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the discovery and development of drugs that target microRNAs to treat and prevent various diseases, including hepatitis C infections, cardiovascular, fibrosis, oncology, immune-inflammatory, and metabolic diseases. One of its main clinical development products is RG-101, a GalNAc-conjugated anti-miR targeting miR-122 to treat patients with hepatitis C virus infection.

The Complaint 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 that: (i) patients treated with RG-101 were at increased risk of contracting jaundice; (ii) consequently, the Company had overstated RG-101’s approval prospects and/or commercial viability; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Regulus’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 27, 2016, post-market, Regulus announced that it had received verbal notice from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) that the FDA had placed RG-101 on clinical hold after a second serious adverse event of jaundice was reported in a patient treated with the drug.

On this news, Regulus’s share price fell $2.47, or more than 49%, to close at $2.54 on June 28, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RGLS
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. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00182
JUDGE: Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz
DATE FILED: 01/31/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/21/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/27/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date