Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 04/16/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: July 19, 2018

According to the Complaint, Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Acadia" or the "Company") is purportedly a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of medicines to address central nervous system disorders. The Company claims its lead drug is NUPLAZID (pimavanserin), which was approved by the FDA on April 29, 2016 for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with PD Psychosis. The Company launched NUPLAZID in the United States in May 2016.

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 failed to disclose: (1) that adverse events and safety concerns related to NUPLAZID threatened the drug’s initial and continuing FDA approval; (2) that ACADIA engaged in business practices likely to attract regulatory scrutiny; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about ACADIA’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 3, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. On February 26, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on April 15.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ACAD
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 #: 18-CV-01647
JUDGE: Hon. Roger T. Benitez
DATE FILED: 07/19/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/09/2018
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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-01647
JUDGE: Hon. Roger T. Benitez
DATE FILED: 04/15/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/09/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (New York)
    60 East 42nd Street - Suite 4600, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (New York), NY 10165
    212.697.6484 212.697.7296 · info@bgandg.com
  2. 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
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available