Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page1 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mark Punzalan (State Bar No. 247599) PUNZALAN LAW, P.C. 600 Allerton Street, Suite 201 Redwood City, CA 94063 Tel: (650) 362-4150 Fax: (650) 362-4151 Email: [email protected]
Nicholas I. Porritt Thomas M. Gottschlich LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 337-1567 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Maritime Asset
Management, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARITIME ASSET MANAGEMENT, No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR LLC, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT Plaintiff,
v.
NEUROGESX, INC., ANTHONY A. DITONNO, STEPHEN F. GHIGLIERI, and JEFFREY K. TOBIAS, M.D.,
Defendants.
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page2 of 23
1
Lead Plaintiff, Maritime Asset Management, LLC (“Maritime”), by its counsel, hereby
2
alleges the following upon personal knowledge as to itself and its transactions in NeurogesX,
3
Inc. (“NeurogesX”) stock and the conversations in which its representative, Andrew Evans
4
(“Evans”) participated, and upon information and belief as to all else, based upon the
5
investigation of counsel, including the review and analysis of Defendants’ filings with the
6
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), Maritime’s own investigation
7
and firsthand knowledge, news articles, and analyst reports:
8
NATURE OF THE CLAIM
9
1. This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or
10
otherwise acquired the securities of NeurogesX, Inc. (“NeurogesX” or the “Company”) on or
11
around July 21, 2011 pursuant to a private placement against NeurogesX and certain of its
12
officers and/or directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange
13
Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78a, et seq . This action also encompasses claims on behalf of Maritime
14
individually for breach of contract and fraud in the inducement against NeurogesX and
15
Defendant Dr. Jeffrey K. Tobias (“Tobias”), the Company’s former Chief Medical Officer and
16
Executive Vice President of Research and Development.
17
2. This action concerns misrepresentations and omissions concerning the continued
18
employment of Tobias as NeurogesX’s Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President of
19
Research and Development. As Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President, Defendant
20
Tobias was a crucial officer for the Company, overseeing all the research and development for
21
the drugs in the Company’s portfolio. NeurogesX, as a biopharmaceutical company, is entirely
22
dependent on generating revenue through the approval and sale of the drugs it develops.
23
Defendant Tobias’s work was therefore of the utmost importance to the Company going
24
forward. Defendant Tobias was particularly important to the Company in light of the pending
25
retirement in December 2011 of Defendant Anthony DiTonno, the Company’s President and
26
Chief Executive Officer. Indeed, Defendant DiTonno has stated that Defendant Tobias was
27 1
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page3 of 23
1
“instrumental” to the Company in public statements, and the Company alluded to its reliance on
2
Defendant Tobias in two Form 10-Qs, filed with the SEC on May 9, 2011 and August 15, 2011,
3
respectively, acknowledging the extent to which the Company was “highly dependent on the
4
principal members of NeurogesX’s management and commercial and scientific staff.”
5
3. Upon information and belief, since April 2011 Defendant Tobias had engaged in
6
an extensive recruiting process to leave the Company and work for a competitor, Jazz
7
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Jazz”). Jazz’s Chief Executive Officer, Bruce Cozadd (“Cozadd”), is a
8
long-time acquaintance of Defendant Tobias. Cozadd identified Defendant Tobias as the first
9
choice candidate to be Jazz’s new Executive Vice President of Research and Development and
10
Chief Medical Officer. Defendant Tobias then underwent an extensive recruiting and
11
interviewing process with Jazz executives and its board of directors throughout the spring and
12
summer of 2011. As early as May 2011, Tobias was advising some of his colleagues at
13
NeurogesX that he was planning on leaving to join Jazz.
14
4. On July 21, 2011, Maritime and twenty other individual and institutional
15
investors entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) to purchase shares and
16
warrants of the Company in a private placement. Of paramount importance to Maritime and the
17
other investors was the assurance that Defendant Tobias would continue on in his current
18
capacity at the Company as Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President. Tobias’s
19
continued employment was critical to obtaining regulatory approval for NeurogesX’s pain drug
20
candidates and the future success of the Company. Just days before entering into the SPA,
21
Evans, an analyst at Maritime, had two conversations with Defendant Tobias, one on a due
22
diligence call arranged by the Company’s underwriter, Leerink Swan, which included
23
Defendant Tobias and other members of NeurogesX’s management, and the other a direct
24
telephone conversation between Evans and Tobias. On both of those calls, in response to
25
multiple direct questions, Defendant Tobias stated that he had no plans to leave the Company
26
and that he was committed to staying at NeurogesX. Tobias assured Evans that he was “not
27 2
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page4 of 23
1
going anywhere” and committed to seeing NeurogesX be successful. Tobias acknowledged that
2
“the medical success of [NeurogesX’s] products relies on me.” On information and belief, each
3
investor in the private placement received similar assurances and representations from Tobias
4
and NeurogesX.
5
5. The SPA contains a provision which also states that “[t]he Company is not aware
6
that any key employee or significant group of employees of the Company or the Subsidiary
7
plans to terminate employment with the Company.” This provision and the entire SPA were
8
made public when the SPA was included as an exhibit to a press release issued by the Company
9
on July 27, 2011. In other public statements during the relevant period, the Company failed to
10
disclose that Defendant Tobias was actively seeking to leave NeurogesX, despite his critical
11
importance to the future success of the Company.
12
6. Contrary to the direct representations of Defendant Tobias in his capacity as an
13
officer of the Company and public statements made on the Company’s behalf that Defendant
14
Tobias was committed to remaining a member of NeurogesX’s management, Tobias in fact had
15
an intention from at least May 2011 to leave NeurogesX. By July 19, 2011, Tobias had already
16
had several meetings with Jazz about leaving NeurogesX and joining Jazz and he had already
17
informed some NeurogesX colleagues of his intention to leave. On September 27, 2011,
18
NeurogesX finally announced that Defendant Tobias had tendered his resignation with the
19
Company on September 21, 2011. The release did not disclose, however, that Defendant Tobias
20
had already accepted ajob with NeurogesX’s competitor Jazz.
21
7. Given the importance of Defendant Tobias, the market reaction to his resignation
22
was severe. NeurogesX stock rapidly declined by almost forty percent, and by October 3, 2011,
23
the Company had lost over half its market value. This market reaction confirms the importance
24
Defendant Tobias played at the Company and the materiality of his continued employment.
25
Had Maritime and the other class members been aware that Defendant Tobias intended to leave
26
the Company, they never would have invested in the Company or participated in the SPA.
27 3
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page5 of 23
1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2
8. The federal law claims asserted herein arise under section 10(b) and section
3
20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b) and section 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5
4
promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, as well as under the common
5
law.
6
9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
7
section 1331 and section 27 of the Exchange Act.
8
10. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state common law claims in
9
this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
10
11. This Court has jurisdiction over each defendant named herein because each
11
defendant is an individual who has sufficient minimum contacts with this District so as to render
12
the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Court permissible under traditional notions of fair
13
play and substantial justice.
14
12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391(a) and section
15
27 of the Exchange Act because NeurogesX is headquartered in this District. Furthermore, at
16
all times relevant to this action, many of the acts and transactions alleged herein occurred in
17
substantial part in this District.
18
THE PARTIES
19
13. Maritime purchased NeurogesX’s securities as set forth herein and in its
20
certification previously filed in this action. Maritime is a citizen of the State of Washington.
21
14. Defendant NeurogesX is a California corporation with its principal place of
22
business located at 2215 Bridgepointe Parkway, Suite 200, San Mateo, CA 94404.
23
15. Defendant Anthony DiTonno (“DiTonno”) was at all relevant times the
24
Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). DiTonno retired as CEO of the
25
Company on December 31, 2011. In his capacity as CEO of NeurogesX, Defendant DiTonno
26
had general authority over all matters relating to the business and affairs of the Company,
27 4
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page6 of 23
1
including, among other things, the dissemination of information regarding the Company’s
2
operations, financial condition, performance, and growth. Defendant DiTonno participated in
3
the Company’s issuance of the false and misleading press release during the relevant period.
4
I DiTonno is a citizen of the State of California.
5
16. Defendant Stephen F. Ghiglieri (“Ghiglieri”) was at all relevant times the
6
Company’s Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) and Chief Financial
7
Officer (“CFO”). In his capacity as CFO of NeurogesX, Defendant Ghiglieri had general
8
authority over all matters relating to the business and affairs of the Company, including, among
9
other things, the dissemination of information regarding the Company’s operations, financial
10
condition, performance, and growth. Defendant Ghiglieri participated in the Company’s
11
issuance of the false and misleading press releases during the relevant period. Ghiglieri is a
12
citizen of the State of California.
13
17. Defendant Dr. Joseph Tobias was at all relevant times the Company’s Chief
14
Medical Officer and Executive Vice President of Research and Development. Tobias is a
15
citizen of the State of California.
16
18. Defendants NeurogesX, DiTonno, Ghiglieri and Tobias are collectively referred
17
to hereinafter as the “Defendants.” Defendants DiTonno, Ghiglieri and Tobias are collectively
18
referred to hereinafter as the “Individual Defendants.”
19
19. The Individual Defendants, because of their positions with the Company,
20
possessed the power and authority to control the contents of NeurogesX’s quarterly reports,
21
press releases, and presentations to securities analysts, money and portfolio managers, and
22
institutional investors, i.e. , the market. They were provided with copies of the Company’s
23
reports and press releases alleged herein to be misleading prior to or shortly after their issuance
24
and had the ability and opportunity to prevent their issuance or cause them to be corrected.
25
Because of their positions with the Company, and their access to material, non-public
26
information available to them but not to the public, the Individual Defendants knew that the
27 5
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page7 of 23
1
adverse facts specified herein had not been disclosed to and were being concealed from the
2
public, and that the positive representations being made were then materially false and
3
misleading. The Individual Defendants are liable for the false statements pleaded herein.
4
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
5
NeurogesX and Defendant Tobias
6
20. NeurogesX was a biopharmaceutical company that focused on developing and
7
commercializing pain management therapies. Qutenza was the Company’s lead product and
8
was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2009 and by the
9
European Medicines Agency in May 2009. During 2011, NeurogesX was developing seven
10
other drugs in its product pipeline at various stages of regulatory approval.
11
21. The biopharmaceutical industry is a highly competitive industry, and the hiring
12
and retention of key medical employees is critical in maintaining the competitive edge,
13
producing successful products, and maintaining confidence in the company’s mission.
14
Therefore it was of the utmost importance that the Company retain someone of Defendant
15
Tobias’s experience and reputation.
16
22. The Company was well aware of the importance of Defendant Tobias. In a press
17
release announcing Defendant Tobias’s promotion to Executive Vice President dated February
18
4, 2010, Defendant DiTonno is quoted as saying that Defendant Tobias’s leadership “will be
19
instrumental as [NeurogesX] prepare[s] for the successful U.S. and E.U. commercialization of
20
Qutenza, as well as further advancement of NGX-1998, later this year.”
21
23. On April 29, 2011, the Company announced the planned retirement of DiTonno,
22
the Company’s President and CEO, by December 31, 2011. The Company also announced that
23
it had entered into amended and restated employment agreements with the Company’s named
24
executive officers, including Defendants DiTonno, Tobias, and Ghiglieri, and that the Board
25
also approved bonuses for, among others, Defendants Ghiglieri and Tobias. These bonuses
26
included cash compensation of $100,000 for each executive officer provided he remained
27 6
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page8 of 23
1
employed with the Company for 12 months following April 27, 2011, and equity compensation
2
in the form of an option grant under the Company’s 2007 Stock Plan, as amended (the “2007
3
Plan”), to each executive officer for 75,000 shares of common stock that vest as to 50% of such
4
shares if such executive officer remains employed with the Company for six months following
5
April 27, 2011 and the remaining 50% if such executive officer remains employed with the
6
Company for two years following April 27, 2011.
7
Jazz Recruits Defendant Tobias
8
24. Jazz, like NeurogesX, is a biopharmaceutical company. Jazz is headquartered in
9
I Dublin, Ireland, but has an office located in Palo Alto, California, a short drive from
10
NeurogesX’s headquarters. Cozadd is Jazz’s Chief Executive Officer and has known Defendant
11
Tobias for several years. In March 2011, Cozadd identified a need to recruit a new Chief
12
Medical Officer for Jazz. In Cozadd’s opinion there was no internal candidate with the requisite
13
experience and skills for this position, therefore an external appointment would be required.
14
Furthermore, Cozadd identified Defendant Tobias as his first choice for this position. Although
15
Cozadd recognized that Defendant Tobias was a suitable candidate for the position, he also
16
recognized that he had to go through a formal recruiting process and involve Jazz’s board of
17
directors in that process. These facts, as well as other facts regarding the recruiting process for
18
Tobias set forth below, have been confirmed by Cozadd in a conversation with Evans on
19
November 28, 2011 at the Piper Jaffrey Healthcare Conference, held in New York, New York.
20
25. Accordingly, in March 2011, Jazz retained Spencer Stuart, a leading global
21
executive firm, to commence a search for a new Chief Medical Officer. From the beginning of
22
the search, which began in Apri l 2011, Defendant Tobias was the lead candidate for the position
23
and he remained the lead candidate until he was formally offered the position on September 16,
24
2011.
25
26. According to Cozadd, the recruitment of Defendant Tobias took place
26
“throughout the spring and summer” of 2011, including multiple meetings with Jazz
27 7
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page9 of 23
1
management and board of directors. Jazz management also introduced Defendant Tobias to the
2
management of Azur Pharma Ltd., a company with whom Jazz was in the process of
3
consummating a merger. According to Cozadd, Azur and Defendant Tobias had been “working
4
together for some time before [Tobias] came aboard Jazz officially.” Indeed, at the Piper
5
Jaffrey Healthcare Conference on November 28, 2011, Cozadd was already describing
6
I Defendant Tobias as the backbone of Jazz.
7
27. In May 2011, a Regional Business Director at NeurogesX was told by a
8
colleague that Tobias was leaving NeurogesX. This information upset the Regional Business
9
Director who understood the importance of Tobias to the Company and understood that the
10
information had to be kept confidential because it would be harmful to the Company if publicly
11
disclosed. At the time NeurogesX had just four Regional Business Directors. This individual
12
worked for NeurogesX from August 2009 to February 2 012 and served as a Regional Business
13
Director from November 2010 to February 2012 and reported to Tim Arndt, NeurogesX Vice
14
President of Sales. The individual learned of Tobias’s plans to leave NeurogesX from Michael
15
Markels, NeurogesX Senior Vice President of Commercial and Business Development who
16
worked closely with Tobias, including on slide presentations for investors.
17
NeurogesX and Tobias Misrepresentations - July 2011 Private Placement
18
28. Also during the summer of 2011, NeurogesX was soliciting investors for a
19
private placement of its securities. Following the late withdrawal of one of the investors in the
20
private placement, on July 17, 2011, Maritime was approached to participate. Of key
21
importance to Maritime was the assurance that Defendant Tobias would remain with the
22
Company, because he was widely regarded as the key driver to any future growth and success at
23
the Company. On July 19, 2011, in response to Maritime’s request, Leerink Swann,
24
NeurogesX’s underwriter, arranged a du e diligence call with NeurogesX’s management team,
25
including Defendant Tobias. Evans participated on the call for Maritime. Defendant Tobias
26
participated in this conference call as a representative of the Company. Also present were
27 8
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page10 of 23
1
Defendants Ghiglieri and Di Tonno. During this conversation, Evans stated to Tobias that
2
NeurogesX would not be able to survive without further FDA approval of its pain drugs and he
3
did not believe NeurogesX would obtain approval without Tobias. Evans then asked Tobias if
4
was committed to NeurogesX and seeing the regulatory process through to approval.
5
29. In response, Tobias acknowledged that “I understand that the medical success of
6
this product relies on me.” Tobias stated to Evans that “I joined NeurogesX with [Ghiglieri]
7
and [Di Tonno] and I am committed to see it through to a success.” Tobias further stated that “I
8
am not going anywhere. I am staying to overcome every hurdle at the FDA to get the pain
9
medication approved.” On information and belief, each of the other investors in the private
10
placement had a similar conversation, either in person or by telephone, with Defendant Tobias
11
and received the same representation.
12
30. Later on July 19 or July 20, 2011, Evans telephoned Defendant Tobias directly.
13
During this telephone call, Defendant Tobias repeated his prior representations that he was
14
committed to staying at the Company.
15
31. Defendant Tobias made the representations set forth in ¦¦ 28-30 even though at
16
this time he was already significantly advanced in the process of leaving NeurogesX for Jazz ,
17
had already had several meetings with Jazz senior management about leaving NeurogesX and
18
joining Jazz instead, and had even told colleagues within NeurogesX months earlier that he was
19
leaving.
20
32. On July 21, 2011, the Company entered into the private placement, where it
21
privately sold shares to Maritime and twenty other investors pursuant to a Securities Purchase
22
Agreement (“SPA”) in which it agreed to sell 11,749,552 shares of common stock and warrants
23
to purchase 5,874,782 shares of common stock. The private placement yielded approximately
24
$20.2 million before deduction of placement agent fees and other transaction expenses.
25
Maritime’s portion of the private placement consisted of 872,093 common shares and
26
accompanying warrants at a cost of $1,500,000.
27 9
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page11 of 23
1
33. In addition to Defendant Tobias’s representations made in the presence of
2
NeurogesX’s management, NeurogesX warranted in the SPA that “[t]he Company is not aware
3
that any key employee or significant group of employees of the Company or the Subsidiary
4
plans to terminate employment with the Company.”
5
34. The SPA became public on July 27, 2011, filed as an exhibit to a Form 8-K filed
6
I with the SEC.
7
35. NeurogesX acknowledged in the SPA that Maritime and the other investors were
8
relying on the foregoing representations and affirmed that the representations were “true and
9
correct in all material respects and [did] not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or
10
omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light
11
of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.”
12
36. Therefore, the Company was well aware and acknowledged the importance and
13
materiality of retaining key employees, particularly those who are involved in the development
14
of medical products, most significantly Defendant Tobias.
15
37. Following the completion of the private placement, on August 5, 2011 the
16
Company also secured a $20 million debt facility, which includes a $5 million accounts
17
receivable line of credit and a $15 million term loan. This debt facility was announced in a
18
Form 8-K, filed with the SEC, on August 8, 2011. Again, Defendants did not make any
19
representations that Tobias was actively looking to leave the Company, since doing so would
20
jeopardize its ability to obtain the debt facility.
21
THE TRUTH IS REVEALED
22
38. During May 2011, Tobias informed some NeurogesX colleagues that he was
23
planning on leaving NeurogesX. In May 2011, a Regional Business Director at NeurogesX was
24
told by a colleague that Tobias was leaving NeurogesX. This information upset the Regional
25
Business Director who understood the importance of Tobias to the Company and understood
26
27 10
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page12 of 23
1
that the information had to be kept confidential because it would be harmful to the Company if
2
publicly disclosed.
3
39. On September 16, 2011, Jazz formally offered Defendant Tobias a position as its
4
Chief Medical Officer. Tobias’ initial annual base salary with Jazz was $407,000 and he
5
received a signing bonus of $125,000 and subsequent bonuses of $62,500 each after six and
6
twelve months of continued employment.
7
40. On September 21, 2011, Dr. Tobias purportedly formally informed NeurogesX
8
of his resignation.
9
41. On September 27, 2011, NeurogesX filed a press release on a Form 8-K,
10
announcing that Defendant Tobias resigned his position with the Company. The Company did
11
not disclose, however, that Defendant Tobias had already accepted the position of Senior Vice
12
President of Research & Development and Chief Medical Officer of Jazz. Defendant Tobias’
13
resignation went into effect on October 15, 2011.
14
42. The market reacted negatively to Defendant Tobias’ resignation. NeurogesX
15
stock rapidly declined almost 40 percent on heavy trading volume, and continued to decline
16
thereafter. By October 3, 2011, the Company had lost over half its market value. In fact, the
17
Company’s stock has been performing so poorly that NASDAQ announced on February 9, 2012
18
that it halted trading on the Company’s common stock.
19
43. On October 31, 2011, scarcely a month after NeurogesX announced Dr. Tobias’
20
resignation, the Company announced that it was replacing Defendant Tobias with Dr. Stephen J.
21
Petroutka.
22
44. NeurogesX never recovered from Tobias’ departure. On March 8, 2012, after the
23
FDA failed to approve the use of Qutenza for some HIV patients, the Company terminated 57
24
percent of its workforce. It terminated all but three of its remaining employees during the rest of
25
2012 and early 2013. Pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated April 15, 2013,
26
Neurogesx sold most of its remaining assets, including its rights to Qutenza, to Accorda
27 11
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page13 of 23
1
Therapeutics, Inc. After this sale closed on July 9, 2013, the remaining assets of the Company
2
were insufficient to meet its outstanding debt, its remaining employees were terminated and its
3
entire Board of Directors resigned. NeurogesX shares currently trade for less than a penny per
4
I share.
5
ADDITIONAL SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS
6
45. As alleged herein, Defendant Tobias acted with scienter as he had formed an
7
intent as of at least May 2011 to leave NeurogesX for Jazz and had no intention to stay
8
employed as NeurogesX’s Chief Medical Officer. Therefore, he knew his representations to the
9
contrary during the due diligence for the July 2011 private placement were false and misleading.
10
Furthermore, he knew that the representations made by the Company in the SPA regarding his
11
continued employment with NeurogesX were also false and misleading. As an officer of the
12
Company, Defendant Tobias’s knowledge is also imputed to NeurogesX.
13
46. As alleged herein, the other Individual Defendants acted with scienter in that
14
they knew or disregarded with deliberate recklessness that the public documents and statements,
15
issued or disseminated in the name of the Company, were materially false and misleading; knew
16
that such statements or documents would be issued or disseminated to the investing public; and
17
knowingly and substantially participated or acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such
18
statements or documents. As set forth elsewhere herein in detail throughout this complaint,
19
Defendants, by virtue of their receipt of information reflecting the true facts regarding
20
NeurogesX and Defendant Tobias’ plan to leave, their control over, and/or receipt, and/or
21
modification of NeurogesX’s allegedly materially misleading misstatements, and/or their
22
associations with the Company which made them privy to confidential proprietary information
23
concerning NeurogesX, participated in the fraudulent scheme alleged herein.
24
47. The small size of NeurogesX and its executive team, the importance of
25
Defendant Tobias and the proximity of Jazz to NeurogesX’s office means it may be strongly
26
inferred that the other Individual Defendants, all members of NeurogesX management, were
27 12
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page14 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
also aware of his discussions with Jazz. Further, knowledge of Tobias’ intention to leave
NeurogesX was known to certain senior Company employees as early as May 2011.
48. The prompt announcement that the Company was replacing Defendant Tobias
with Dr. Stephen J. Petroutka on October 31, 2011 further suggests that NeurogesX
management and its Board had significant advance notice of Defendant Tobias’s departure,
while still keeping it hidden from investors such as the Maritime. Indeed, the Company’s own
filings with the SEC highly suggest that it is not feasible to select a replacement for Defendant
Tobias in such short order. In the 10-Qs issued on May 9, 2011 and August 15, 2011,
respectively, the Company gave an example of the time and due diligence required to replace an
executive. The 10-Qs stated:
If we lose one or more of these key employees, our ability to implement and
execute our business strategy successfully could be seriously harmed. Replacing
key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because
of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize
products successfully. For example, on April 29, 2011, we announced the
planned retirement of Anthony DiTonno, our President and Chief Executive
Officer, by December 31, 2011. We initiated a formal executive search for a
Chief Executive Officer, however there can be no assurance that our search
will be successful in identifying a proper candidate, that a candidate will accept
the position on terms acceptable to us or how long such a search will take to
perform . . . .
49. Given that the Company expressed concerns that it would be unable to find a
suitable replacement for its outgoing CEO during a period of more than seven months, it is
highly unlikely that it would be able to have found a suitable replacement for its outgoing Chief
Medical Officer and Executive Vice President in a little over a month. This evidence is highly
suggestive that Defendants DiTonno and Ghiglieri were well aware of Defendant Tobias’
pending departure during the summer of 2011 and planned for it, yet failed to notify the
investing public of such a change. Quite the contrary, the Company affirmatively disavowed
that any employee was planning on leaving the Company in the SPA, which was made public
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
28 13
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page15 of 23
1
on July 27, 2011.
2
50. The facts alleged herein compel a strong inference that the Individual
3
Defendants, the Company’s senior management, knew about Defendant Tobias’ plan to leave
4
the Company and decided to withhold that information from the investors in the private
5
placement. While this information was withheld from the market and NeurogesX’s stock price
6
was artificially inflated, the Individual Defendants and NeurogesX decided to raise capital
7
through the private placement on July 21, 2011 and the August 2011 debt facility, capital that
8
NeurogesX would have been unable to raise if the truth about Defendant Tobias’ plan to leave
9
the Company had been publicly disclosed. Defendants were thus motivated to perpetuate the
10
fraudulent scheme and course of conduct described herein.
11
LOSS CAUSATION
12
51. As detailed herein, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and
13
engaged in a scheme to deceive the class and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the
14
price of NeurogesX’s securities and operated as a fraud or deceit on the purchasers of
15
NeurogesX securities by materially misleading the investors in the private placement. Later,
16
when the Defendants’ misrepresentations became apparent to the market, the price of
17
NeurogesX’s securities fell precipitously, as the prior artificial inflation came out of the price
18
over time. As a result of their purchases of NeurogesX’s securities pursuant to the SPA, Lead
19
Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered economic loss, i.e., damages, under the federal
20
securities laws.
21
NO SAFE HARBOR
22
52. The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements under certain
23
circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements pleaded in this Complaint.
24
The statements alleged to be false and misleading herein all relate to then-existing facts and
25
conditions. In addition, to the extent certain of the statements alleged to be false may be
26
characterized as forward looking, they were not identified as “forward-looking statements”
27 14
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page16 of 23
1
when made and there were no meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors
2
that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the purportedly forward-looking
3
statements. In the alternative, to the extent that the statutory safe harbor is determined to apply
4
to any forward-looking statements pleaded herein, Defendants are liable for those false forward-
5
looking statements because at the time each of those forward-looking statements was made, the
6
speaker had actual knowledge that the forward-looking statement was materially false or
7
misleading, and/or the forward-looking statement was authorized or approved by an executive
8
officer of NeurogesX who knew that the statement was false when made.
9
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
10
53. Lead Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or
11
otherwise acquired NeurogesX securities on July 21, 2011 pursuant to the SPA (the “Class”).
12
Excluded from the Private Placement Class are Defendants and their families, the officers and
13
directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their
14
legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or
15
had a controlling interest.
16
54. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
17
impracticable. Upon information and belief, the Class numbers twenty-one entities or
18
individuals and that they are geographically dispersed.
19
55. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact
20
involved in this case. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Private
21
Placement Class which predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members
22
include:
23
a) whether the Exchange Act was violated by Defendants;
24
b) whether Defendants omitted and/or misrepresented material facts;
25
26
27 15
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page17 of 23
1
c) whether Defendants’ statements omitted material facts necessary to make
2
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
3
misleading;
4
d) whether Defendants participated and pursued the fraudulent scheme or
5
course of business complained of herein;
6
e) whether Defendants acted willfully, with knowledge or recklessly in
7
omitting and/or misrepresenting material facts;
8
f) whether the price of NeurogesX securities was artificially inflated as a
9
result of the material nondisclosures and/or misrepresentations complained of herein; and
10
g) whether the members of the Class have sustained damages as a result of
11
the decline in value of NeurogesX’s stock when the truth was revealed, and if so, what is the
12
appropriate measure of damages.
13
56. Lead Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class because Plaintiff and the
14
Class sustained damages from Defendants’ wrongful conduct in a substantially identical
15
manner.
16
57. Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Class and has retained
17
counsel who are experienced in class action securities litigation. Plaintiff has no interests which
18
conflict with those of the Class.
19
58. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
20
adjudication of this controversy.
21 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
22 COUNT I
23
Against Defendant Tobias for Fraud In the Inducement
(on behalf of Maritime individually) 24
59. Maritime incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation
25 contained in paragraphs 1 to 51 above, as though fully set forth herein.
26
27 16
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page18 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
60. Defendant Tobias induced Maritime into executing the SPA based upon the false
representation that he did not intend to leave the Company.
61. When Defendant Tobias, as duly authorized agent of NeurogesX, made those
false statements, other members of NeurogesX’s management were present and did not dispute
I or correct those statements.
62. Defendant Tobias made those representations aware of their falsity, but
Defendant Tobias and the rest of NeurogesX’s management knew that the only way to induce
Maritime to execute the SPA was by making such a promise.
63. Maritime believed and justifiably relied upon the statements made by Defendant
Tobias and was induced by those statements to execute the SPA.
64. Maritime, because of its reliance upon Defendant Tobias’s representation, has
suffered losses in connection with the shares and warrants purchased pursuant to the SPA.
COUNT II Against NeurogesX and Tobias for Violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 (on behalf of the Class)
65. Lead Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 to 58 above, as though fully set forth herein.
66. As set forth herein, Defendant NeurogesX made the false statements specified
above, which it knew or deliberately disregarded were misleading in that they contained
misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
67. Defendant NeurogesX violated section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 in that it:
a) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud;
b) made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
they were made, not misleading; or
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
28 17
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page19 of 23
1
c) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business that operated as a
2
fraud or deceit upon Plaintiff and others similarly situated in connection with their purchases
3
of NeurogesX’s securities.
4
68. NeurogesX and Tobias are liable as primary violators in making false and
5
misleading statements, and for participating in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
6
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of NeurogesX stock pursuant to the private
7
placement and SPA. NeurogesX had a motive to pursue a fraudulent scheme in furtherance of
8
their common goal, i.e. , inflating the trading price of NeurogesX stock by making false and
9
misleading statements and concealing material adverse information. The fraudulent scheme and
10
course of business was designed to and did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Lead
11
Plaintiff and other members of the Class; (ii) artificially inflate the prices of NeurogesX stock;
12
(iii) cause Lead Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase NeurogesX stock at
13
inflated prices; and (iv) substantially cause the severe decline in NeurogesX’s stock price as the
14
artificial inflation was released.
15
69. Lead Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in reliance on the
16
misrepresentations set forth herein, they paid artificially inflated prices for NeurogesX’s
17
securities. Lead Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased NeurogesX’s securities at the
18
price they paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the price had been artificially and falsely
19
inflated by Defendants’ misleading statements. As a result of NeurogesX’s false statements,
20
NeurogesX was able to sell securities in the private placement to the Class members at prices
21
higher than if the truth about Tobias’ imminent departure from NeurogesX had been known.
22
The Class members suffered millions of dollars of damages when the truth of Tobias’ departure
23
was revealed and the artificial inflation was released from NeurogesX’s stock price.
24
//
25
//
26
//
27 18
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page20 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COUNT III Against Individual Defendants for Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
(on behalf of the Class)
70. Lead Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 to 58 and 65 to 69 above, as though fully set forth herein.
71. Each of the Individual Defendants, as senior executive officers and/or directors
of NeurogesX, were privy to non-public information concerning Defendant Tobias’ plans to
leave NeurogesX via access to internal corporate documents, conversations and connections
with other corporate officers and employees, attendance at management and Board of Directors
meetings and committees thereof and via reports and other information provided to them in
connection therewith. Because of their possession of such information, the Individual
Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that adverse facts specified herein had not
been disclosed to, and were being concealed from, the Class. Lead Plaintiff and other members
of the Class had no access to such information, which was, and remains solely under the control
of the Defendants.
72. The Individual Defendants were involved in drafting, producing, reviewing
and/or disseminating the materially false and misleading statements complained of herein. The
Individual Defendants were aware (or recklessly disregarded) that materially false and
misleading statements were being issued by the Company and nevertheless approved, ratified
and/or failed to correct those statements, in violation of federal securities laws. The Individual
Defendants were able to, and did, control the contents of the Company’s SEC filings, reports,
press releases, and other public statements. The Individual Defendants were provided with
copies of, reviewed and approved, and/or signed such filings, reports, releases and other
statements prior to or shortly after their issuance and had the ability or opportunity to prevent
their issuance or to cause them to be corrected.
73. The Individual Defendants also were able to, and did, directly or indirectly,
control the conduct of NeurogesX’s business, the information contained in its filings with the
SEC, and its public statements. Moreover, the Individual Defendants made or directed the
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
28 19
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page21 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
making of affirmative statements to securities analysts and the investing public at large, and
participated in meetings and discussions concerning such statements. Because of their positions
and access to material non-public information available to them but not the public, each of the
Individual Defendants knew that the adverse facts specified herein had not been disclosed to
and were being concealed from the public and that the positive representations that were being
made were false and misleading. As a result, each of the Individual Defendants is responsible
for the accuracy of NeurogesX’s corporate releases and statements detailed herein and is
therefore responsible and liable for the misrepresentations contained herein.
74. Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of NeurogesX within the
meaning of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. By reason of their positions with the Company,
Individual Defendants had the power and authority to cause NeurogesX to engage in the
wrongful conduct complained of herein. Individual Defendants controlled NeurogesX and all of
its employees. As alleged above, NeurogesX is a primary violator of section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. By reason of their conduct, Individual Defendants are
liable pursuant to section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
COUNT IV Against Defendant NeurogesX for Breach of Contract
(on Behalf of Maritime Individually)
75. Maritime incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 to 51 above, as though fully set forth herein.
76. Maritime entered into the SPA with the Company whereby it purchased shares of
stock and warrants from the Company.
77. The SPA contained an express representation clause which stated that the
Company was not aware of any key personnel planning to terminate employment with the
Company.
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
28 20
27
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page22 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
78. NeurogesX breached the contract by failing to disclose when the contract was
executed that Defendant Tobias, a key personnel of NeurogesX, was planning to terminate his
employment.
79. As a direct and proximate result of NeurogesX’s breach of the SPA, Maritime
suffered damages in connection with its respective purchase of the Company’s securities.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Maritime prays for judgment as follows:
A. Declaring this action to be a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certifying Lead Plaintiff as a representative of the Class;
B. Awarding Lead Plaintiff and the members of the Class damages, including
interest;
C. Rescinding the SPA entered into by Maritime and the Company and returning
the principal paid by Maritime ;
D. Awarding Lead Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and
E. Awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
Dated: October 29, 2013 PUNZALAN LAW, P.C.
By: /s/ Mark Punzalan
Mark Punzalan 600 Allerton Street , Suite 201 Redwood City, CA 94063 Tel: (650) 362-4150 Fax: (650) 362-4151
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
28 21
Case4:12-cv-05034-YGR Document63 Filed10/29/13 Page23 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Nicholas I. Porritt Thomas M. Gottschlich LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 337-1567
Counsel for PlaintiffMaritime Asset Management, LLC
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT No. 4:12-cv-05034-YGR
28 22
27