Elan/Dura Shareholder Claims Rejected By Supreme Court
This article was originally published in The Pink Sheet Daily
Executive Summary
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.
You may also be interested in...
High Court Justices Question Shareholders' "Loss" In Case Against Dura/Elan
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."
Supreme Court To Hear Elan/Dura Shareholder Lawsuit On Securities Fraud Standards
Dura is asking the high court to consider whether shareholders must show a link between allegedly misleading statements and an actual drop in stock value, or just an inflated stock price on the date of purchase. The case stems from Dura’s 1997 statements about Ceclor CD and the Spiros albuterol device.
Puberty Blockers: FDA's Califf Asked If REMS, Boxed Warning Against Off-Label Use In The Works
FDA Commissioner Robert Califf tells House appropriations subcommittee chair the agency will 'consider any information that may be available' on off-label use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria before making a regulatory decision.