Case name: Puma Biotechnology
Verdict award: Up to $4.50 per damaged share, total award TBD
Claim filing deadline: 1/28/2020
Class period: 7/22/2014 – 5/29/2015
This week saw the rarest of rarities, a veritable solar eclipse of the securities class action world: claim forms in the wake of a verdict. In the past 10 years, there has been one verdict (this one) and over 1100 settlements.
The main reason corporations settle securities class actions is, of course, that the cost of litigation can be too expensive even if they believe they could win the case. In addition to that, corporations risk paying enormous damages should a jury rule against them. Where in a securities settlement the corporation may pay a small percentage per damaged share, a verdict against a corporation could mean full or nearly full damages. This is what happened in the Household International Securities Litigation, which went all the way to the Supreme Court and ended with the company paying $1.575 billion to investors.
So understandably, after the Puma Biotechnology verdict came down the lead plaintiffs’ attorneys at Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd sent out a press release declaring victory. The release quoted one attorney saying, “It’s hard to overstate the significance of this verdict…”
And yet a competing press release by the defendants’ attorneys at Latham & Watkins did just that, and in no less emphasis than ALL CAPS: “JURY REACHES VERDICT IN FAVOR OF LATHAM CLIENT PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY IN SECURITIES CLASS ACTION TRIAL.”
BUH? But the other press release said that “Puma Biotechnology, Inc. and its CEO, Alan H. Auerbach, committed securities fraud and awarding shareholders up to $100 million in damages”! This one says the jury “reached a unanimous verdict… awarding a miniscule damages.”
So is it $100 million? Or miniscule?
Jenna Greene of Law.com wrote about these competing press releases this past February and noted that “declaring victory in this case has more to do with what you want to emphasize: the moral high ground or cold, hard cash. Based solely on the docket entry, the outcome looks like a definite win for Robbins Geller,” whereas to Latham, they kept this case from having a Household International price tag for their clients.
As to whether it is $100 million of a more “miniscule” range of $9 million to $18 range, as the defendants claim, will be determined as the recovery process plays out.
Chicago Clearing is now preparing claims in the Puma Biotechnology litigation. If you think you may have a claim, give us a call today.
Good news for those investors who purchased Valeant securities between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015. Plaintiffs and Valeant (now known as Bausch Health) have hammered out a $1.21 billion settlement. Settlement notices and claim forms are not yet available, but Chicago Clearing Corporation (CCC) will begin preparing claims f... Read More
Did you trade debt securities of government sponsored enterprises (aka GSE bonds) between 2009 and 2019? If so, you may be eligible to participate in an antitrust settlement.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants (see full list below) conspired to fix prices of unsecured GSE bonds issued by Federal ... Read More
Case Name: Akorn 2019 Securities Settlement
Settlement Fund: Between $53.6 million and $155.4 Million
Claim Filing Deadline: January 24, 2020
Class Period: 11/3/2016 – 1/8/2019
Endo International... Sound familiar? Earlier this August we posted a blog with a similar title “Endo International Settles Securities Settlement for $50 Million.”
So what’s the difference? Aside from $32.5 million.
The first settlement pertained to declining demand for Endo’s generic drugs and also alleged th... Read More
Investors in American Realty Capital Properties (ARCP), now known as Vereit, may be eligible for a massive settlement that could pay as much as 50% of damages. Given that the typical recovery is just 2%, this is great news for harmed ARCP investors.
What is this case about?
ARCP was an investment services firm fou... Read More
“I could go on and on, but bottom line, the fees being charged are much less than what I was spending in house to file and this is just one less thing I have to spend time trying to figure out how to complete on a consistent basis. I send the data on an annual basis to CCC and they take it from there. My clients are protected (if there is a class action, it is getting filed), the Bank is protected (we are meeting our fiduciary obligation by filing the claims) and…dealing with the CCC staff has been a very positive thing.”
John E. Thomason, The National Bank of Indianapolis
“We were spending countless hours on class action claims before we signed on with CCC in January. Matt Murray and their technical team ensured our data transmission was seamless and secure. We found everyone at CCC to be professional, courteous, and accommodating.”
Carie A. Minnie, Torrington Savings Bank
“We found filing securities claims very time consuming and laborious. But after signing with CCC, it’s been great! Everything is handled behind the scenes.”
Carol A. Neville, Proffitt & Goodson
“Signing with CCC has made a huge difference. Before, it was horrible. We had to print thousands of pieces of paper, invite clients to come in and sit down with us to show them where to find the transactions, how to input them into the Proof of Claim forms…Now, we do some minor leg work up front when a new account is opened, and then upload our spreadsheet to CCC. And then, voila! It’s very nice to be able to tell our client, “You can shred that Proof of Claim form because CCC has it taken care of.”
Daniela Jones, Barnes Investment Advisory
“Your client reporting portal and customer service is the reason we chose Chicago Clearing.”
Debbie Kirby, Bank of the Ozarks