The court held that a statement contained in a private contract that was publicly filed may be actionable. Bjorlin is also the person at Lidingo who signed its promotional services contract with Galena. Plaintiffs sufficiently allege violations of Rule 10b-5 b as follows: Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege specific misrepresentations or omissions in: Council Pension , F. Plaintiffs’ allegations relating to DreamTeam’s social media posts support an alleged promotional “scheme” claim under 10b-5 a or c discussed further below. Arellano and Daniel L.

Another exhibit specifically incorporated is an email dated February 4, , from McCarthy to Ahn and Bernarda forwarding draft articles for approval. Fentanyl can be abused and has been resold as a street drug. Zucco , F. Here, Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to show that Ahn’s stock sales support a strong inference of scienter. These sales were not made pursuant to a pre-arranged Rule 10b trading plan, and Ahn had not sold any Galena stock on the open market in the previous four years. For the alleged misrepresentations and omissions the Court has found to be actionable, the Court also finds that they are material.

The other elements of a securities fraud claim are analyzed below. This report also stated that “[i]n accordance with the terms his employment agreement.

In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. | D. Or. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

That’s why we don’t cover them,” he said. Defendants argue that in Plaintiffs’ first claim, they allege only a violation campwign Rule 10b-5 b. The Court need not address whether Meyer is an employee or agent of DreamTeam or whether the group pleading doctrines of “collective scienter” or “core operations” scienter are applicable in this case.

Dunlap advised that Kriegsman could not sell at that time because of the trading blackout period.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs merely recast their misrepresentation claim under Rule 10b-5 b as a scheme liability claim under Rules 10b-5 a and c. Plaintiffs further allege that in December and JanuaryDreamTeam caused five articles to be published on Seeking Alphaall of whom were caze by the same author using different DreamTeam aliases.

Galliker is also the Chief Financial Officer of Kindred. Thus, it is a reasonable inference that Ahn was capmaign of this casd cover-up. Although Defendants may provide evidence at summary judgment or trial that the alleged misrepresentations did not substantially cause Plaintiffs’ losses, at this stage the Court finds that Plaintiffs adequately have alleged that the alleged fraud investir revealed to the market through several disclosures in February and March and caused Galena’s stock price to drop significantly.


Similar to the allegations made against Biophqrma, Plaintiffs allege that Bernarda corresponded extensively with DreamTeam and Lidingo; reviewed, edited, and approved the articles; knew that the articles were part of the paid promotional scheme; admitted to the Special Committee that she knew the articles galenw part of the paid promotional campaign; received copies of the published articles; and knew the articles did not disclose their paid connection to Galena.

Tiberend cautioned that these firms “are asking for fees but not disclosing that the resulting article was paid for by the company. Plaintiffs allege this form is false or misleading because it asserts that no material facts are omitted from the report and that the signatories have disclosed to Galena’s auditors any fraud that involves Galena’s management or other employees.

He sold anothershares three trading days later, on January 22,representing approximately Plaintiffs do not allege any statement by Galena or an individual Defendant that he or she was complying with the Code of Ethics when he or she was not complying with the Code of Ethics.

galena biopharma case study investor awareness campaign

Kriegsman’s stock sales as alleged by Plaintiffs thus weigh heavily in favor of a scienter inference. ZuccoF. It is also readily apparent that the conduct alleged in the complaint was not ‘manipulative’ within the meaning of the statute. Galena’s relationship with DreamTeam dates back toand its relationship with Lidingo dates back to In modern parlance, the term “secondary offering” has two meanings: Ahn approved drafts that did not contain the required paid promotion disclaimer and was later provided copies of final, published versions that also did not contain the required paid promotion disclaimer.


Scheme created fake news stories to manipulate stock prices, SEC alleges

Plaintiffs allege that Galena and its management and directors entered into an unlawful promotional scheme with DreamTeam and Lidingo artificially to inflate the stock price of Galena using a variety of different channels. Bernarda noted that Tiberend treated writers as “journalists,” unlike DreamTeam.

Finally, Ahn’s insider stock sales biophaema a strong inference of scienter. In the former, the proceeds of the sale go to the selling shareholders. The court also found the plaintiffs in that case adequately alleged Kriegsman’s scienter. That same day, Galena published an open letter to its investors. The court need not, however, credit the plaintiff’s legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations.

galena biopharma case study investor awareness campaign

Although the allegations are sufficient to show that Dunlap knew that Galena was in a promotional relationship with Lidingo and that Ahn had improperly awarded stock options to Lidingo, there are no particularized allegations that Dunlap knew that Lidingo was causing promotional publications to be published in a misleading fashion or without the required disclosures.

Accordingly, those arguments are attributed to all defendants.

Scheme created fake news stories to manipulate stock prices, SEC alleges – Los Angeles Times

On August 18,Galena’s Board held a special meeting. Some of the articles published resulted in Galena’s stock price gaining fifteen percent in a single day.

The Court notes that much of the Consolidated Complaint impermissibly lumps all Defendants together in alleging that “Defendants” performed some act or knew about some fact. To the extent Plaintiffs intend to allege a separately actionable false or misleading statement under 10b-5 bhowever, Plaintiffs do not allege with particularity what is false or misleading about those posts.

Plaintiffs also do not plead in the alternative, that Galena had ultimate authority but if biophrma Galena, then DreamTeam.

galena biopharma case study investor awareness campaign