Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/09/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: October 08, 2020

According to the Complaint, Mesoblast Limited develops allogeneic cellular medicines using its proprietary mesenchymal lineage cell therapy platform. Its lead product candidate, RYONCIL (remestemcelL), is an investigational therapy comprising mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow.

The Complaint alleges that 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, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that comparative analyses between Mesoblast’s Phase 3 trial and three historical studies did not support the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for steroid refractory aGVHD due to design differences between the four studies; (2) that, as a result, the FDA was reasonably likely to require further clinical studies; (3) that, as a result, the commercialization of remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be delayed; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: Australia

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MESO
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. New York
DOCKET #: 20-CV-08430
JUDGE: Hon. Philip M. Halpern
DATE FILED: 10/08/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/16/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/01/2020
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (NY)
  2. The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available