|  | | 2012 News and Press Releases | | |
HEADLINE NEWS:
A Closer Look At Life Sciences Companies And Securities Litigation
Kevin LaCroix
The D & O Diary. March 21, 2012
_________________________________________________________________________
EXCERPT: Though down from the previous year on both an absolute and a relative basis, securities class action lawsuit filings against life sciences companies remained a significant component of all securities class action lawsuit filings during 2011 […]. There were 17 securities class action lawsuits filed against life sciences companies during 2011, representing approximately 9% of all 2011 securities class action suits. The number of 2011 life sciences suits represents a decline both in absolute and relative terms from the prior year, when there were 29 securities suits involving life sciences companies, representing 16% of all securities class action lawsuits. However, the 2011 figures are consistent with albeit slightly below prior years (for example, during both 2008 and 2009, suits against life sciences companies represented 10% of all securities lawsuits). The lawsuits filed against life science companies in 2010 had been weighted toward the larger companies. However, the lawsuits filed in 2011 were more focused on smaller companies. During 2011, 58% of all life sciences companies hit with securities suits had market capitalizations under $250 million, compared with only 31% in 2010. By contrast, during 2010, 29% of the securities lawsuits involving life sciences firm related to companies with market caps over $10 billion, whereas during 2011, there were no suits filed involving those larger life sciences companies. […] One development during 2011 potentially of significance with respect to securities litigation involving life sciences companies was that in March 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano […]. In its opinion, the Court rejected the argument of Matrixx Initiatives that adverse product reports must be "statistically significant" in order for a manufacturer to have an obligation to disclose the reports to investors. |
|
|
