On or around 10/15/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)
Filing Date: June 06, 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) the combination of Perjeta and Herceptin is only marginally more effective than Herceptin alone in preventing breast cancer; and (2) as a result, Defendants’ statements about Roche’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
On September 22, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on March 5, 2018. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on June 4. On September 24, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Lead Plaintiff was given leave to file amend the Complaint. On October 15, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Roche Holding AG
Industry: Major Drugs
Ticker Symbol: RHHBY
Company Market: OTC-BB
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
Thomas Biondolillo, et al. v. Roche Holding AG, et al.