Goodwin Procter litigators secured dismissal on October 2, 2012 of a securities fraud class action against client MELA Sciences, Inc., and three of MELA’s officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs had alleged that MELA and certain of its officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 because public statements concerning the clinical trial’s results for MelaFind®, an instrument designed to assist in the detection of melanoma, were false and misleading.
Goodwin’s FDA group represented MELA Sciences in obtaining its approval. After the FDA’s approval of MelaFind undermined this claim, the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add a new theory based on the timing and scope of FDA approval. Judge Vincent Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion and reinstated and granted MELA’s motion to dismiss, resulting in a complete victory for Goodwin’s clients.
“It is always gratifying when the Court’s scrupulous analysis underscores its conclusion that plaintiffs failed to allege that MELA had any fraudulent intent whatsoever or that the Company omitted any material information,” said Deborah Birnbach, a partner in Goodwin’s litigation group.
The Goodwin litigation team was led by Birnbach.
The plaintiffs had alleged that MELA and certain of its officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 because public statements concerning the clinical trial’s results for MelaFind®, an instrument designed to assist in the detection of melanoma, were false and misleading.
Goodwin’s FDA group represented MELA Sciences in obtaining its approval. After the FDA’s approval of MelaFind undermined this claim, the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add a new theory based on the timing and scope of FDA approval. Judge Vincent Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion and reinstated and granted MELA’s motion to dismiss, resulting in a complete victory for Goodwin’s clients.
“It is always gratifying when the Court’s scrupulous analysis underscores its conclusion that plaintiffs failed to allege that MELA had any fraudulent intent whatsoever or that the Company omitted any material information,” said Deborah Birnbach, a partner in Goodwin’s litigation group.
The Goodwin litigation team was led by Birnbach.