View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 13-cv-23878-UU Judge: Hon. Ursula Ungaro
ATUL KAMAR SOOD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON I CASE No.: 13-cv-23878-UU BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT Plaintiff, OF MOTION FOR CLASS
vs. CERTIFICATION
CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL PARTNERS INC., PATRICK J. MCENANY
Defendants.
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 2 of 12
I. Introduction Defendants concede that Catalyst’s stock traded in an efficient market during the class
period, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to a presumption of reliance on the integrity of the market
price. Thus, the Court should grant the motion for class certification unless it finds that
Defendants have proven that their false statements had no impact on Catalyst’s share price.
This is an unlikely case to argue price impact. Catalyst’s stock price went up statistically
significantly (by 40%) on the day, August 27, when it falsely stated that there was “no ...
effective treatment” for LEMS. It fell statistically significantly (by 43%) as a result of an
October 18 news article that there was such a treatment. But citing Halliburton Co. v. Erica P.
John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014) (“Halliburton II”), Defendants claim that the Court,
rather than the jury, must hear their “price impact” arguments. Halliburton II was a modest
decision that granted defendants the right to rebut a presumption of reliance in certain
circumstances. It did not presume to overrule the Court’s recent decisions that neither materiality
nor loss causation was properly before the Court. But Defendants’ argument is that the truth
correcting their false statements was already known by the market and were therefore immaterial
and could not have contributed to Catalyst’s share price rise on August 27 nor caused its share
price decline on October 18, and thus did not have any “price impact”.
In any case, Defendants’ arguments are without merit on the facts. The cases Defendants
cite establish that they had to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the true facts
were disclosed to the market prior to the Class Period with as much intensity and credibility as
the false statement that there was no effective treatment for LEMS on August 27. Clearly, they
were not, since when they were disclosed to investors on October 18, Catalyst’s stock price fell
by 43%, and did not recover in the following two and a half months.
In fact, Defendants only cite a few disclosures scattered through their SEC filings.
Defendants ignore that the Court has already held these exact disclosures are inadequate to put
the market on notice . Defendants add analyst reports, three of which make the same disclosures
the Court held are insufficient, and the fourth of which was issued by a firm without a working
website. This report hardly equals the defendants’ own false statements, which were repeated by
the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press.
And Defendants, citing their expert, blame overreaction and bad publicity for the 42%
1
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 3 of 12
fall on October 18. But Defendants’ expert admitted that she never actually analyzed whether the
stock price overreacted or whether bad publicity caused the stock price drop. Defendants thus
offer only speculation to assert that the October 18 price decline was an “overreaction” to “bad
publicity”. Indeed, Defendants’ expert testified that, on a theoretical level, Catalyst’s stock price
“shouldn’t overreact”. And in speculating that Catalyst’s stock price overreacted to the October
18, Feuerstein article, Defendants admit that it did have an impact on Catalyst’s share price.
Defendants offer an argument about damages, not about rebutting the presumption of reliance.
Defendants concede that Plaintiffs are entitled to a presumption of reliance, but fail to
rebut it. The class should be certified.
II. Defendants must show that the fact that 3,4-DAP was an effective treatment was transmitted with as much intensity and credibility as their false claim that there was no such treatment.
Defendants concede that Catalyst’s stock trades on an efficient market, and that Plaintiffs
are entitled to the presumption of reliance. The only argument they raise is that they have
rebutted the presumption. Their burden is a preponderance of the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 301;
Fogarazzo v. Lehman Bros., Inc. , 263 F.R.D. 90, 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Defendants’ claim that
the false statement that there was no effective treatment for LEMS had no price impact because
the market already knew that it was false is a truth-on-the-market defense. Though they do not
mention it in their brief, it requires Defendants to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the true information was disclosed with the same intensity and credibility as the false statements.
In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig. , 886 F.2d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. Provenz v. Miller , 102
F.3d 1478, 1493 (9th Cir. 1996) (statement must be transmitted with intensity and credibility
sufficient to counterbalance any misleading impressions).
III. Defendants may not raise a materiality defense to class certification by labeling it a price impact argument.
Defendants are not advancing a price impact argument properly so-called. They readily
concede that Catalyst’s stock price rose by 40% following the false August 27 statement that
there was no effective treatment for LEMS, and that it fell materially (by 43%) on October 18
and 21 as a result of Mr. Feuerstein’s article. Instead, Defendants argue that the stock price
increase on the day of their false statement was not due to their false statement. The market knew
that there was an effective treatment for LEMS despite Defendants’ concededly false claim that
there was not. – i.e., the truth was “on the market.” (Allen Tr. 55-56; Feinstein Rebuttal ¶¶ 21-
2
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 4 of 12
22).1
Defendants’ argument that the stock price movement on August 27, the day they falsely
stated that there was “no effective treatment” for LEMS was caused by something other than that
statement is an argument that the statement was immaterial. Provenz, 102 F.3d at 1492. But in
2013, the Supreme Court held that on class certification, courts should not consider whether the
false statements plaintiffs complain of were material. Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans &
Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1191 (2013). The Court reasoned that even if statements are
immaterial, the class should be certified. Then, a class action will generate a common answer to
the common question of materiality. The Halliburton II Court never said it was effectively
overruling the just-decided Amgen , But as Defendants tell it, had those defendants, instead,
simply argued that the false statements were not material and therefore had no price impact –
true by definition, see id. at 1191 – class certification would have been denied (exactly what
Defendants do here).
Halliburton II did not overrule Amgen, instead repeatedly citing Amgen and stating that it
was being reaffirmed. Halliburton II, 134 S. Ct. at 2407. Indeed, all six Justice who joined the
majority opinion in Halliburton II also joined the majority opinion in Amgen , and Justices
Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, whose votes were necessary for the majority, joined the
opinion on the express understanding that it would “impose no heavy toll on securities-fraud
plaintiffs with tenable claims”. Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398,
2417 (2014) (Ginsburg, J., concurring). The only example of price impact evidence it gave,
clarifying its scope, was a demonstration that the company’s stock price did not move
statistically significantly as a result of the false statement or its disclosure. Halliburton II, 134 S.
Ct. at 2415. The unstated exception does not swallow the rule; Halliburton II does not impose on
district courts the obligation to conduct at class certification mini-trials on materiality,
materiality, or whichever other element a defendant argues relates to price impact.
1 Citation to “Allen Tr. __” are to pages of the deposition transcripts of Lucy P. Allen, attached as Exhibit 1to the Declaration of Jonathan Horne, filed herewith. Citations to “Allen ¶ __” are to Paragraphs of the Expert Report of Lucy T. Allen, Dkt. # 94-1. Citations to “Feinstein Rebuttal ¶__” are to paragraphs of the Rebuttal Report of Steven P. Feinstein, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Jonathan Horne, filed herewith. Citations to “Horne Dec. Ex. __” are to exhibits to the Declaration of Jonathan Horne, filed herewith. Citations to “Def. Opp. __” are to pages of Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel, Dkt. # 94.
3
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 5 of 12
If the truth was on the market, then class-members’ claims will all fall together; it is for
the jury to decide. See also Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co. , 254 F.R.D. 168, 186 (S.D.N.Y.
2008) (defendants’ claim that the market was aware that their statements were false was not
relevant to rebutting the presumption of efficiency); City of Livonia Employees' Ret. Sys. v.
Wyeth , 284 F.R.D. 173, 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (claim that stock price fell on day of disclosure in
reaction not to news but to other fact is loss causation and cannot be considered at class cert
stage). Defendants’ cases are inapposite, since they all precede Amgen .
IV. Even if Defendants may in theory rebut the presumption of reliance by showing that the truth was on the market, they have not met their burden of proof here.
As the Court has already held, the statement that there was “no effective treatment” for
LEMS is false. In reality, because 3,4-DAP is “safe and effective” and “virtually identical to
Firdapse” the misstatement is “highly material.” Sood v. Catalyst Pharm. Partners Inc., 13-CV-
23878-UU, 2014 WL 1245271, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2014). A defendant claiming that its
false statements are excused by other disclosures is advancing a truth-on-the-market argument,
and must show that the disclosures were made with as much intensity and credibility as its own
false statements. See 2-3 above; accord Nguyen v. Radient Pharm. Corp. , 946 F. Supp. 2d 1025,
1036 n.13 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
Courts are wary of excusing defendants’ false statements on grounds that the market
knew they were lying. See, e.g. , In re LDK Solar Sec. Litig. , 255 F.R.D. 519, 527 (N.D. Cal.
2009).). In LDK , the defendants sought to truncate the class period, claiming that they had
rebutted the presumption of reliance for part of the class period following a disclosure of their
fraud. An analyst at investment bank Piper Jaffray issued a report disclosing the defendants’
fraud. The day after, the company itself issued a press release responding to the analyst report.
The analyst report was closely followed. Other analyst reports claimed that the Piper Jaffray
report changed the investment thesis, that the stock would “trade with some uncertainty”
following it, and indeed, trading volume and the stock’s short interest increased following the
Piper Jaffray report. Indeed, the Piper Jaffray report caused the company’s stock price to fall.
The court nonetheless held that the defendants had not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of
reliance for the portion of the class period falling after the Piper Jaffray report was published.
LDK was much closer than this case.
a. Company disclosures
4
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 6 of 12
Defendants must show that their “highly material” statement that there was no effective
treatment for LEMS was effectively counterbalanced by statements made with the same intensity
and credibility. They point to their own partial and isolated disclosures, which they all raised in
their motion to dismiss. Compare Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’; Complaint For
Violation of the Federal Securities Laws, Dkt. # 29, at 5-8, with Allen Report, ¶¶ 19-24. The
Court has already held these very same statements disclosed that Firdapse is a proprietary form
of 3,4-DAP and that a company was holding Phase II trials using 3,4-DAP but not that 3,4-DAP
was effective . Sood, 2014 WL 1245271, at *7 n.6.
And though Defendants try to color their falsehood as an aberration, August 27 was not
the only time Defendants falsely stated or implied that there was no effective treatment for
LEMS. Catalyst announced its acquisition of the U.S. rights to Firdapse on October 31, 2012,
through a press release and accompanying current report on Form 8-K, both filed with the SEC.
In the 8-K, Catalyst represented that “[t]here are no approved drugs in the United States for the
treatment of LEMS. Current options rely on intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis and/or
immuno suppressant drugs.” (Horne Dec. Ex. 3). In fact, the leading treatment was 3,4-DAP,
which Defendants do not dispute. In the press release, Catalyst announced that “[a]s part of this
arrangement, we are gaining access to a late-stage U.S. orphan drug targeting LEMS, a disease
of the central nervous system for which there is not currently an effective treatment approved in
the United States.” (Horne Dec. Ex. 4). In fact, there was an effective treatment, which the
academic literature called safe and effective, and that could be approved on an individual basis
by the FDA; there was instead no treatment which was approved for marketing by the FDA. In
written questions and answers released the following day, Catalyst stated that it “believes that the
reason for the limited Firdapse sales in the EU to date by BioMarin is compounding pharmacy
competition, reimbursement issues and the fact that this product has not been actively promoted
by BioMarin as a result of other product priorities. Catalyst does not expect to face these
challenges in North America.” (Horne Dec. Ex. 5). Because of Jacobus, Catalyst faced much
stiffer competition in the US. Thus, notwithstanding Defendants’ claims to this Court, they
regularly claimed or implied that there was no effective treatment for LEMS.
b. News reports Ms. Allen’s report cites a November 2011 article as advising the market that there was an
5
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 7 of 12
effective treatment for LEMS. But at her deposition, she acknowledged that Catalyst investors
would have no particular reason to be aware of the article because it was written at a time when
Catalyst had no connection with LEMS and is about another company . (Allen Tr. 18).
The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, and Bloomberg BNA all reported on
Catalyst’s announcement, and all repeated Defendants’ claim that there was no effective
treatment for LEMS, with Associated Press claiming that the lack of an effective treatment for
LEMS was part of the “big picture” in investing in Catalyst. (Horne Dec. Ex. 6-8). At her
deposition, Ms. Allen admitted that her claim that the articles did not focus on the statement that
there was no effective treatment for LEMS that they quoted is simply that the claim does not
appear in the articles’ headlines. (Allen Tr. 58-59).
c. Analyst reports. Defendants state that Roth Capital Partners and Aegis Capital disclosed that 3,4-DAP
was an effective treatment for LEMS. But Roth’s article merely discloses that Jacobus was
conducting a Phase II trial, and Aegis’s merely discloses that 3,4-DAP and Firdapse are
bioequivalent. Allen ¶ 26. These are the statements the Court has already held did not alert the
markets. Sood, 2014 WL 1245271, at *7 n.6. Maxim, for its part, merely stated that
Amifampridine is available for LEMS treatment in the United States from “a few compounding
pharmacies” – not Jacobus – and never stated that 3,4-DAP was effective. Allen ¶ 26. And
though H.C. Wainwright’s is the only article that states that amifampridine compounding has
been cited as a competitive threat to Firdapse, albeit in the EU market, it added that
compounding may or may not be a threat in the U.S., did not disclose that Jacobus could
continue to offer 3,4-DAP, and did not claim that 3,4-DAP was effective .
Even if the H.C. Wainwright article could be taken to disclose that 3,4-DAP was
effective, if third party statements merely conflict, rather than unanimously correct the false
statements, courts usually hold that the curative statements have not been made with sufficient
intensity and credibility. See, e.g. , Flecker v. Hollywood Entm't Corp. , 1997 WL 269488, at *6
(D. Or. Feb. 12, 1997); In re Seagate Tech. II Sec. Litig. , 802 F. Supp. 271, 275 (N.D. Cal. 1992)
(contradictory analyst statements precludes establishment of truth-on-the-market defense). Here,
the entire burden of disclosing to the market the falsity of Catalyst’s claim, repeated by three
reputable news sources, that there was no effective treatment for LEMS, falls on the shoulders
6
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 8 of 12
of an H.C. Wainwright report issued on August 29. Even if Defendants could in theory establish
that the H.C. Wainwright report was sufficient, they have not done so. All they have established
was that H.C Wainwright issued a report. This leaves many open questions. On intensity: Was
H.C Wainwright’s report available online? Starting at least June 2013, H.C. Wainwright’s
website has been under construction, and it is impossible to obtain analyst reports from it.2 How
else did investors obtain the report? Was it emailed? Emailed to H.C. Wainwright’s clients only?
Was it emailed to investors upon their request? Did H.C. Wainwright publicize the report?
And on credibility: Catalyst obviously knows more about its products and the markets for
them than H.C. Wainwright. It also has an obligation to speak truthfully in its SEC filings. And
the Wall Street Journal, Investors’ Business Daily, the Associated Press, and Bloomberg BNA,
obviously are highly reputable news sources. H.C. Wainwright is an obscure investment bank
without even a website. Is H.C. Wainwright’s reputation so stellar that its saying that there was
an effective treatment for LEMS was equivalent to all of these sources’ statement that there was
no effective treatment for LEMS? Kaplan v. Rose , 49 F.3d 1363, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994) (fact that
articles came from relatively obscure sources weighed against finding that truth was on the
market).
And notably, though Defendants cite many cases, they have not found a single case in
which a court held that the presumption of reliance was rebutted because the false information
was already incorporated into the stock price. Some are cases simply stating the standard that a
defendant may defeat the presumption by severing the link between the false statements and
investors’ losses. Findwhat Investor Grp. v. Findwhat.com , 658 F.3d 1282, 1310 (11th Cir.
2011) (noting that confirmatory information from the company not expected to have price
impact); Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co. , 228 F.3d 154, 167 (2d Cir. 2000) (noting the truth-on-
the-market defense, but finding that the defendants had not established it); Basic, 485 U.S. at 248
(noting that the presumption of reliance may be rebutted). Others concern rebutting the
presumption of reliance by showing that the stock price did not increase contemporaneously with
the misrepresentation or fall with the corrective disclosures. Nathenson v. Zonagen Inc. , 267 F.3d
2 History of domain names http://hcwainwright.com and http://hcwco.com on the internet archive, www.archive.org , caches dated June 3, 2013 and June 5, 2013. Both http://hcwainwright.com and http://hcwco.com were also last visited August 18, 2014.
7
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 9 of 12
400, 417 (5th Cir. 2001); Semerenko v. Cendant Corp. , 223 F.3d 165, 179 (3d Cir. 2000); Peil v.
Speiser, 806 F.2d 1154, 1162 (3d Cir. 1986); In re Moody's Corp. Sec. Litig. , 274 F.R.D. 480
(S.D.N.Y. 2011) (Defendants rebutted presumption of reliance because there was no statistically
significant price impact coinciding with any false statements, and the only negative statistically
significant price reactions were outside the class period or coincided with an announcement the
court had already held was not a corrective disclosure).3 Their inability to find a case supporting
their position speaks volumes.
d. The stock drop on October 18 shows that the Defendants’ misrepresentations had a price impact.
For three reasons, Defendants must show that the stock drop on October 18 did not result
from Defendants’ false statements. First , the cases Plaintiffs cited in their opening brief so hold.
Second, Defendants must show that the true facts were disclosed to the market with the same
intensity and clarity as their own false statements. That Catalyst’s stock price fell by 43% over
two days and never recovered when Mr. Feuerstein revealed that there was an effective treatment
for LEMS is compelling evidence that this fact was not conveyed to the market, if at all, with the
same intensity and clarity as Defendants’ claim that there was none. Indeed, Defendants’ own
brief, citing a recent Eleventh Circuit case, provides that “disclosure of confirmatory information
– or information already known by the market – will not cause a change in the stock price.”
Findwhat, 658 F.3d at 1310. Mr. Feuerstein’s article must thus have contained new information –
or at least information that had not been conveyed to the market with sufficient intensity and
clarity to counterbalance Defendants’ false statements. And third :
[A]t the class certification stage courts generally do not close a class period on the basis of one disclosure when a subsequent disclosure caused a significant drop in stock price. The reason is that such cases present factual issues as to whether early
3 Defendants do not cite it, but the Court’s previous decision in Andrx is distinguishable. There, on January 9, 2002, a defendant was quoted as saying that but for pending litigation, its drug would have been approved. The plaintiffs claimed the statement was false, because there were other reasons that the drug would not have been approved. Over the previous four months, Defendants themselves, and eleven separate articles published in reputable news sources had all claimed that there were many other reasons Defendants’ drug would not have been approved, with no contrary disclosures. In re Andrx Corp., Inc. , 296 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2003). Based on the uncontested showing that the defendants had adequately shown that these articles intensely and credibly communicated the truth, see id. at 1366 (noting that the plaintiffs had abandoned the claims in their complaint), this Court found that the defendants had established their truth-on-the-market defense.
8
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 10 of 12
disclosures were fully or partially curative.
In re Mills Corp. Sec. Litig. , 257 F.R.D. 101, 106 (E.D. Va. 2009) (citing, among others, In re Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. Sec. Litig. , 571 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 1343 (N.D. Ga. 2007).
Defendants’ attempt to explain how the 43% October 18 stock drop is consistent with
their claim that the truth was on the market are incoherent. Defendants claim, as they must, that
Mr. Feuerstein’s article did not reveal to the market that 3,4-DAP was an effective treatment for
LEMS, since they claim that the market already knew it. Instead, Defendants blame the stock
price collapse on “market overreaction” and bad publicity, citing their expert. (Def. Opp. at 15;
Allen ¶ 62).
On bad publicity, both Defendants and their expert claim that the market learned no new
facts from Mr. Feuerstein’s article. (Allen ¶ 64). And despite the claims in her report, Ms. Allen
admits that she hasn’t analyzed whether bad publicity had an impact on Catalyst’s stock price.
(Allen Tr. 87). Indeed, beyond stating that Mr. Feuerstein’s article painted Catalyst as “villains”,
she could not explain what the bad publicity was, instead simply stating that the article’s “tone”
was negative. (Allen Tr. 68, 70). Nor could she explain why Mr. Feuerstein’s repeating facts the
market already knew and then adding that he disapproved could possibly drive down the stock
price:
Q: So I just marked Exhibit 27 and, with your pen, please underline the new information in the Adam Feuerstein article that caused the stock price to decline.
A: [...] And so I don’t believe there is any actual new information about Catalyst’s business other than that there’s a, you know, a guy writing an article who people portray as a short seller trying to drive down the stock and paint the company as being evil and profiting. So they are claiming the company is going to profit, which for shareholders is obviously not necessarily a bad thing, but painting the company as a villain is negative publicity. (Allen Tr. 65-66). On market overreaction, Defendants’ expert admits that though she claimed that “market
commentary further indicates that the stock price was an overreaction”, she never attempted to
determine whether the stock drop was an overreaction. (Allen Tr. 81). As Ms. Allen testified,
there are accepted quantitative tests to determine if a stock price overreacted to news, which
generally test to see whether the stock price rebounded. She never ran them and, indeed, the
stock price had not rebounded by the end of 2013. (Allen Tr. 80; Horne Dec. Ex. 9). Ms. Allen
testified that an overreaction over old news is not consistent with the efficient market and that it
9
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 11 of 12
is, in fact, evidence that the stock does not trade on an efficient market. (Allen Tr. 71-72; 75; 77-
78). The claim that the stock price overreacted might feature in an argument that Catalyst’s stock
price does not trade on an efficient market; but it doesn’t lend any weight to rebutting the
presumption. And an “overreaction” necessarily implies a “reaction”; Defendants’ argument
goes to damages, but not to whether there was a price reaction.
V. Conclusion
Defendants concede that the class is entitled to a presumption of reliance, and have not
met their burden to rebut it. The motion for class certification should be granted.
Dated: August 18, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
/s/ Laurence M. Rosen Laurence M. Rosen, Esq, Fla. Bar # 0182877 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827
Counsel for Plaintiff
10
Case 1:13-cv-23878-UU Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2014 Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 18, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which sent notification of such filing to all counsel
of record.
/s/ Laurence M. Rosen
11
Recommended