Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 05/17/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: February 24, 2019

According to the Complaint, Diplomat purports to operate as an independent specialty pharmacy in the United States.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Diplomat had downplayed its success in integrating and growing its PBM business, which included LDI Integrated and National Pharmaceutical, two companies Diplomat had acquired in late 2017; (2) consequently, Diplomat would need to record a non-cash impairment charge upwards of approximately $630 million relating to its PBM business and these 2017 acquisitions; (3) due to the foregoing, Diplomat would withdraw its preliminary 2019 full-year outlook issued less than seven weeks prior; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about Diplomat's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On April 18, 2019, the Court issued an Order transferring this case to the Northern District of Illinois.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DPLO
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 #: 19-CV-01369
JUDGE: Hon. George H. Wu
DATE FILED: 02/24/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/26/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/21/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 19-CV-02631
JUDGE: Hon. George H. Wu
DATE FILED: 04/18/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/26/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/21/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available