High Court Justices Question Shareholders' "Loss" In Case Against Dura/Elan
This article was originally published in The Pink Sheet Daily
Executive Summary
In Dura v. Broudo oral arguments, several justices cite difficulty in connecting a February 1998 decline in the company's stock price, for which the shareholders seek compensation, with a disclosure nine months later that FDA deemed the company's Spiros albuterol device "not approvable."
You may also be interested in...
Elan/Dura Shareholder Claims Rejected By Supreme Court
The shareholders failed to establish a causal connection between Dura’s alleged misrepresentations about the Spiros albuterol device in the late 1990s and any economic loss, the high court says in a unanimous opinion. Elan acquired Dura in 2000.
Elan/Dura Shareholder Claims Rejected By Supreme Court
The shareholders failed to establish a causal connection between Dura’s alleged misrepresentations about the Spiros albuterol device in the late 1990s and any economic loss, the high court says in a unanimous opinion. Elan acquired Dura in 2000.
Elan/Dura Shareholder Lawsuit Gets Supreme Court Hearing Jan. 12
At issue is whether shareholders in a securities lawsuit must demonstrate “loss causation” by proving a causal link between the alleged fraud and a decline in stock price. The lawsuit stems from statements made by Dura about Ceclor CD sales and development of the Spiros albuterol device. Elan acquired Dura in 2000.