|
Post by 4allthemarbles on Mar 8, 2016 18:34:19 GMT -5
All are scum bags...except for Baba! Well, maybe we should wait and see...
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Mar 8, 2016 20:40:50 GMT -5
Ho much are those dozen or so class action law suits expected to slow MNKD's recovery? Ballsy of you to assume there is going to be a recovery. You are expecting a company that has never sold or marketed a drug to be successful when a major BP, regardless of their intentions, wasn't successful to be successful. That's a tall order. It is why I hope the company is actively shopping for a buyer.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 8, 2016 20:56:04 GMT -5
One thing I noticed was that the previous class action suit had only three firms: "The securities class plaintiffs are represented by...Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP...Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, and...Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman." This time around there's a whole gang of them: ... I'm unsure how to interpret the growth in numbers. If you don't spay and neuter feral animals they replicate quickly and become a nuisance to civilization?
|
|
|
Post by jerrys on Mar 9, 2016 0:17:25 GMT -5
One thing I noticed was that the previous class action suit had only three firms: "The securities class plaintiffs are represented by...Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP...Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, and...Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman." This time around there's a whole gang of them: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Khang & Khang LLP Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Law Offices of Vincent Wong Lifshitz & Miller Law Firm Brower Piven LLC Rosen Law Firm Harwood Feffer LLP Goldberg Law PC Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Hagens Berman Law Firm Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel Pomerantz Law Firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Federman & Sherwood LLC Robbins Arroyo LLP Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Powers Taylor LLC Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC I'm unsure how to interpret the growth in numbers. Growing number of law firms is not the key. What matters is whether or not there is a Lead Plaintiff for them to represent, not to mention the outcome of any "investigations". I think so far it is difficult to establish any valid claim against MNKD for misleading or being the cause of investors' loss. Why waste time to get into a case with these law firms which need tons of time (& your costs) to investigate for case establishment? Found at least two plaintiffs:
Defendant: Hakan Edstrom, Alfred Mann, MannKind Corporation and Matthew Pfeffer Plaintiff: Ketan A. Patel Case Number: 2:2016cv00581 Filed: January 27, 2016 Court: California Central District Court Presiding Judge: R. Gary Klausner Referring Judge: Gail J. Standish Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities"
Defendant: Hakan Edstrom, Alfred Mann, MannKind Corporation and Matthew Pfeffer Plaintiff: Eric Ardolino Case Number: 2:2016cv00348 Filed: January 15, 2016 Court: California Central District Court Presiding Judge: R. Gary Klausner Referring Judge: Gail J. Standish Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities"
It looks like Patel is an MD:
Patel
And perhaps Ardolino is an MD as well:
Ardolino
Although I did find one other person -- a travel agent -- by that name.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Mar 9, 2016 1:34:00 GMT -5
Lead plaintiff does not have to be one of the more allegedly aggrieved claimants, in fact, I doubt the amount of damage allegedly suffered weighs much at all. The amount of damage suffered is the principal determinant of who gets to be lead plaintiff. The goal when the law was changed was to get institutional investors involved as lead plaintiffs rather than the brother-in-law of the first lawyer to file (this was actually a common practice with one infamous law firm). The criteria for who gets to be lead plaintiff is codified in federal law and it is up to the judge to decide which party best satisfies the statutory criteria; the rules are set forth at 15 USC 78u-4(a)(3). The reason there are so many law firms scrambling for position is that they smell money and whichever firm signs up the eventual lead plaintiff will get be the lead law firm and claim most of the legal fees. There is only one lead plaintiff for the case so from the law firm's perspective it is a winner take all deal.
There will be a case, no question about that, but the first step is to get the case beyond what is known as the 12(b) hearing. Once the lead plaintiff is identified Mannkind will file a 12(b) motion to have the case dismissed, and the plaintiff's law firm will file a motion in opposition to dismissal. Both parties have to show their cards and the judge decides at that point if there is enough evidence for the case to go forward. If Mannkind's motion to dismiss is rejected, the pressure will be on for a settlement from the Director and Officer insurance proceeds. If Mannkind's motion to dismiss is granted, the case is over at that point. While a 12(b) dismissal is theoretically appealable, very few are pursued further.
Since the law was changed in the late 1990's, approximately 50% of securities cases have been dismissed at the 12(b) hearing and 50% have proceeded to trial or settlement.
Matt, from reading the Code as you have cited, you're right, the amount of damage allegedly suffered is an important factor - so if there are 50 guys who want to be lead claimant, all things being equal, the guy who allegedly lost the most would likely be chosen. Naturally, all things are no necessarily equal. Just shows real estate lawyers shouldn't shoot from the hip in securities litigation! I still do not believe they have a meritorious case, but many of those get settled and give the lawyers a nice payday. In hindsight, which is how judges and especially juries hear things, oftentimes a defendant wishes they hadn't said this or that. "Embarrassment of riches comes to mind," but I don't think that statement is actionable, but again, my next class action case will be my first. The stuff about the retiring the financing is the most troubling thing I can think of with this poor memory. But whatever it is, the lawyers will make it sound like mass murder of nursery school kids. I think the D&O carrier will eventually settle up, with not too much distraction from the work at hand.
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Mar 9, 2016 11:52:16 GMT -5
You know, it does occur that there was a lot of press around the HFs using patent lawsuits to kill small biotech to support their short interest.
Perhaps this is (opportunistically), simply another angle to the same ploy. Lawyers see money, HF shorts see money, and plaintiffs do too. Especially since a suit in the past with MNKD in this direction had already succeeded.
That said, I have no doubt based on where the stock price is and how many of us have been financially crushed, there are those out there with less hope and more anger and on the line that are truly interested participants at this point.
|
|
|
Post by jerrys on Mar 9, 2016 12:01:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Mar 9, 2016 12:09:56 GMT -5
Growing number of law firms is not the key. What matters is whether or not there is a Lead Plaintiff for them to represent, not to mention the outcome of any "investigations". I think so far it is difficult to establish any valid claim against MNKD for misleading or being the cause of investors' loss. Why waste time to get into a case with these law firms which need tons of time (& your costs) to investigate for case establishment? Found at least two plaintiffs:
Defendant: Hakan Edstrom, Alfred Mann, MannKind Corporation and Matthew Pfeffer Plaintiff: Ketan A. Patel Case Number: 2:2016cv00581 Filed: January 27, 2016 Court: California Central District Court Presiding Judge: R. Gary Klausner Referring Judge: Gail J. Standish Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities"
Defendant: Hakan Edstrom, Alfred Mann, MannKind Corporation and Matthew Pfeffer Plaintiff: Eric Ardolino Case Number: 2:2016cv00348 Filed: January 15, 2016 Court: California Central District Court Presiding Judge: R. Gary Klausner Referring Judge: Gail J. Standish Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities"
It looks like Patel is an MD:
Patel
And perhaps Ardolino is an MD as well:
Ardolino
Although I did find one other person -- a travel agent -- by that name.
I wonder .... fprimecapital.com/team-members/ketan-patel-m-d/
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Mar 9, 2016 14:36:30 GMT -5
Considering that Sanofi was in charge of marketing AND sales, it would be very easy for Mannkind to drag SNY into this suit should it move forward. I don't think it is something Sanofi would want but would be a good move on Mannkind's part. It also could be a very good point to have the suit dropped if Mannkind's lawyers explain to the judge that the merits of the lawsuit have no grounds as Mannkind was using info their sales and marketing partner was giving them. Why sue us and not also Sanofi?
|
|
|
Post by irrationalexubera on Mar 9, 2016 15:03:00 GMT -5
Considering that Sanofi was in charge of marketing AND sales, it would be very easy for Mannkind to drag SNY into this suit should it move forward. I don't think it is something Sanofi would want but would be a good move on Mannkind's part. It also could be a very good point to have the suit dropped if Mannkind's lawyers explain to the judge that the merits of the lawsuit have no grounds as Mannkind was using info their sales and marketing partner was giving them. Why sue us and not also Sanofi? now you're just being logical, mindovermatter. no way logic prevails in any of this!
|
|
|
Post by sluggobear on Mar 9, 2016 15:35:02 GMT -5
esstan2001:
The Case Number: 2:2016cv00581 lists Ketan A. Patel - ostensibly it's the MD in Florida.
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Mar 9, 2016 15:41:55 GMT -5
I've read a lot of civil complaints, and this one seems awfully thin.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Mar 9, 2016 17:04:47 GMT -5
Not sure what MannKind did wrong? I listened to the calls and see no basis for a suit.
|
|
|
Post by longstocking on Mar 9, 2016 19:33:39 GMT -5
I noticed one law firm that is missing from the list Dewey Cheatem & Howe. LOL. Those guys are too busy representing Click and Clack (Car Talk)!
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 9, 2016 19:54:23 GMT -5
I've read a lot of civil complaints, and this one seems awfully thin. I agree. Unless the insurers particularly want to settle I cannot see that going anywhere.
|
|