Stay up-to-date with the latest developments in securities law through access to both news and all statutes and regulations. Find relevant corporate filings through a searchable EDGAR database. And...
March 4 — France-based Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Inc. can't be held liable for making false and misleading statements about a multiple sclerosis drug while it was under review by the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
The decision is important because it is one of few federal appeals court decisions interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court's Omnicare decision on liability for statements of opinion.
No reasonable investor would have been misled by the Sanofi defendants' optimistic projections regarding the likelihood of FDA approval, Judge Barrington D. Parker concluded.
He said the plaintiffs failed to state a claim even under the high court's new Omnicare approach to allegations of materially misleading opinions.
In Omnicare Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund , the justices held that an issuer could be liable for the omission of material facts concerning the company's knowledge about a statement of opinion, if those facts conflicted “with what a reasonable investor would take from the statement itself.”
According to the plaintiffs, Sanofi, its predecessor company and three corporate executives made materially false or misleading statements regarding Lemtrada, designed to treat multiple sclerosis. Allegedly, while Lemtrada was undergoing Phase III clinical trials prior to FDA approval, Sanofi misled investors by not telling them that the FDA repeatedly had expressed concerns regarding Sanofi's use of single-blind, rather than double-blind studies in its clinical trials.
Although the FDA ultimately approved Lemtrada to treat MS, it didn't do so until well after the deadline had passed for certain milestones that entitled the holders of “contingent value rights”—CVRs—to cash payments. A little more than a year ago, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' two related complaints, saying the challenged statements either were opinion statements of opinion or not materially misleading . It also said the plaintiffs didn't adequately allege scienter.
The appeals court affirmed. It said it wrote primarily to address the impact of Omnicare, decided after the lower court made its decision.
Among other specifics, the Second Circuit said that under Omnicare, an allegedly misleading opinion must be viewed in context, “and context is instructive here.”
It said the plaintiffs, being sophisticated investors, would fully expect that the defendants and the FDA “were engaged in a dialogue, as they were here, about the sufficiency of the various aspects of the clinical trials and that inherent in the nature of a dialogue are differing views.”
The fact that the dialogue was ongoing didn't preclude the defendants “from expressing optimism, even exceptional optimism, about the likelihood of drug approval.”
The plaintiffs were represented by Christopher L. Nelson, James M. Ficaro and Brett D. Stecker, Weiser Law Firm PC, Berwyn, Pa.; Daniella Quitt, Harwood Feffer LLP New York; and John B. Orenstein, Harry N. Niska, Ross Orenstein & Baudry LLC, Minneapolis.
The defendants were represented by John Neuwirth, Joshua S. Amsel, Caroline Hickey Zalka, and Justin D. D'Aloia, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York.
To contact the reporter on this story: Phyllis Diamond at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan Jenkins at firstname.lastname@example.org
To see the decision, go to http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/In_re_Sanofi_Securities_Litiga_Docket_No_1500588_2d_Cir_Feb_23_20.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)