Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/03/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: May 01, 2017

According to the law firm press release, ImmunoCellular is a development stage company, and its lead product candidate, ICT-107, is a dendritic cell-based vaccine targeting multiple tumor associated antigens for glioblastoma multiforme.

The Complaint charges that prior to and throughout the Class Period, defendants developed a scheme to manipulate and artificially inflate the stock price of ImmunoCellular. By virtue of this scheme, the market was conditioned to believe that ImmunoCellular’s clinical studies for ICT-107 were going well as the placement of these fraudulent media reports were often timed to coincide with ImmunoCellular’s announcements of ICT-107, so to have maximum impact upon ImmunoCellular’s share price.

Unbeknownst to the market, beginning in September 2011, ImmunoCellular hired Lidingo Holdings, LLC, a stock promotional firm to pump up the value of ImmunoCellular stock. This endeavor included a campaign of planting phony analyst reports and news articles that fawned over ImmunoCellular. In many cases, these phony media reports were written under aliases, and failed to reveal that ImmunoCellular had complete editorial control over their work.

On December 11, 2013, ImmunoCellular revealed that the primary endpoint for its ICT-107 Phase II study "did not reach statistical significance" because it failed to increase overall survival in patients diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme.

As a result, ImmunoCellular stock declined nearly 60%, to close at $1.10 per share on December 12, 2013.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IMUC
Company Market: New York SE
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 #: 17-CV-03250
JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
DATE FILED: 05/01/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/01/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/11/2013
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 ·
  2. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-03250
JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
DATE FILED: 08/24/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/01/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/11/2013
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 ·
  2. Levi & Korsinsky (Stamford)
    733 Summer Street, Suite 304, Levi & Korsinsky (Stamford), CT 06901
    203-992-4523 ·
  3. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date