On or around 08/10/2020 (Date of last review)
Filing Date: August 10, 2020
According to the Complaint, MEI Pharma was founded in 2000 and is based in San Diego, California. The Company was formerly known as Marshall Edwards, Inc. and changed its name to MEI Pharma, Inc. in July 2012. MEI Pharma is a late-stage pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development of various therapies for the treatment of cancer. MEI Pharma's clinical drug candidates include, among others, Pracinostat, an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) MEI Pharma had overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as an AML treatment for the target population; (ii) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial condition and prospects for Pracinostat; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Mei Pharma, Inc.
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: MEIP
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.