Agreed, CP. This BS case was utterly pathetic and reeks of improper motive and abuse of the legal process. Since the (now discredited) lawsuit was reported in the Annual Report, shouldn't a PR be appropriate?
From the 2013 Annual Report. I believe the lead plaintiff might have changed since then (I think a reference to the CA is also in the quarterly reports):
WE AND CERTAIN OF OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND ONE CONSULTANT HAVE BEEN NAMED AS DEFENDANTS IN LITIGATION THAT COULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL COSTS AND DIVERT MANAGEMENT’S ATTENTION. On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) against us and certain of our executive officers and one consultant (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that we and the Individual Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the interim median overall survival results of our bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 5, 2013, the court appointed James T. Fahey as lead plaintiff in the action. The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on April 15, 2013. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on June 14, 2013. The lead plaintiff has until July 15, 2013, to file an answer to our motion to dismiss. A hearing before the Court on our motion to dismiss is scheduled for August 19, 2013.
There is no guarantee that we will be successful in defending the amended consolidated lawsuit. Also, our insurance coverage may be insufficient, our assets may be insufficient to cover any amounts that exceed our insurance coverage, and we may have to pay damage awards or otherwise may enter into settlement arrangements in connection with such claims. A settlement of the lawsuit could involve the issuance of common stock or other equity, which may dilute your ownership interest. Any payments or settlement arrangements could have material adverse effects on our business, operating results, financial condition or your ownership interest. Even if the lead plaintiff’s claims are not successful, this litigation could result in substantial costs and significantly and adversely impact our reputation and divert management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition or partnering efforts. In addition, such consolidated lawsuit may make it more difficult to finance our operations, obtain certain types of insurance (including directors’ and officers’ liability insurance), and attract and retain qualified executive officers, other employees and directors.
The Other Guy, allow me to not agree with :
Quote: First, out of "respect" to the losers of the trial.
A) I don't know about you, but I felt flooded with messages from all the ambulance-grade CA chaser law offices calling for plaintiffs.
B) Up to personal letters to shareholders via the brokers
C) They produced NOTHING!
D) They lingered AT PURPOSE by repeating the SAME story in filing and extensions.
E) They only hoped PPHM would pay them off so this would go away.
Out of respect for the looser you said? Ney, so pls PPHM don't hesitate and PR this IMO.
