Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 01/15/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 15, 2019

According to the Complaint, DBV Technologies S.A., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in the research and development of epicutaneous immunotherapy products. Its lead product candidate was Viaskin Peanut, an immunotherapy product, which completed Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of peanut allergies in children, adolescents, and adults.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) DBV Technologies’ Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for Viaskin Peanut failed to provide the FDA with sufficient data on manufacturing procedures and quality controls; (2) consequently, DBV Technologies voluntarily withdrew the BLA for Viaskin Peanut; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about DBV Technologies’ business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: France

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DBVT
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: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 19-CV-00525
JUDGE: Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo
DATE FILED: 01/15/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/14/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/19/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm (South Orange)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available