We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 23

Denial of leave to amend securities complaint affirmed on basis of futility

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 28 2008

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a decision dismissing Plaintiff’s class action securities fraud complaint and denying Plaintiff leave to amend

Recent insider trading case sparks concerns over leaked clinical trial results

  • Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 20 2012

The Martoma insider trading case is the latest in, and largest of, a string of actions brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission related to the alleged misuse of confidential clinical trial information by life sciences companies and third parties with access to this information

Third Circuit vacates dismissal of Celebrex securities fraud class action

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 17 2009

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit”) recently vacated the dismissal of a securities fraud class action alleging that a pharmaceutical company, Pharmacia, Inc., made materially false statements about a clinical study of a popular anti-inflammatory medication

French doctor charged in criminal and civil insider trading cases

  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 3 2010

The criminalization of securities enforcement has increased in recent years

Two recent false claims decisions issued by the federal courts

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 25 2011

On May 16, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that False Claims Act (FCA) cases brought by whistleblowers who base their allegations on information found in records released by federal agencies pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request are subject to the “public disclosure” bar

Pharmaceutical and other companies beware: new Supreme Court decision weighs in on adverse event reports and potential liability under federal securities laws

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 23 2011

In 2010 the US Supreme Court agreed to hear another securities fraud case Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano which could significantly increase pharmaceutical and other companies’ exposure under federal securities laws, especially those companies that make disclosure decisions based on the statistical significance of certain events

Supreme Court decides Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 22 2011

On March 22, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, No. 09-1156, holding that a plaintiff may state a claim against a pharmaceutical company for securities fraud under 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, as amended, 15 U. S. C. 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b5, 17 CFR 240.10b5 (2010), based on the company's failure to disclose reports of adverse events associated with a product even if the reports do not disclose a statistically significant number of adverse events

U.S. Supreme Court rules that a drug’s adverse event reports may be material to investors even though not "statistically significant"

  • Jones Day
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 28 2011

On March 22, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano (No. 09-1156

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano

  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 25 2011

Failure to disclose a statistically insignificant incidence of adverse side effects could lead to significant securities-fraud liability for publicly traded drugmakers, device manufacturers, and others under a recent Supreme Court decision

Supreme Court rejects bright-line test for materiality in Rule 10b-5 class action with respect to adverse event reports

  • Ropes & Gray LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 24 2011

In Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al. v. Siracusano, et al., decided on March 22, 2011, the Supreme Court addressed the circumstances under which adverse event reports (“AERs”), i.e., reports by users of a drug that they experienced an adverse medical event at some point during or following the use of that drug, will be considered “material” for purposes of Rule 10b-5 fraud claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy