b'dismiss. Accordingly, while the court held that thereexaggerating the effectiveness of ESKATA while failing was no question that the case should be litigated as ato disclose its risks. On June 20, 2019, FDA disclosed class action, it concluded that the lead plaintiff was notin a letter that ESKATA made false and misleading an adequate representative because its conduct sug- claims in direct-to-consumer advertising. The next day, gested that it was not acting to protect the interests ofAclariss stock price fell $0.57 per share, more than 11%.the class. The court permitted the lead plaintiff to pros- On July 30, 2019, investors filed a putative class action ecute the claims individually and at its own expense,complaint against Aclaris, its CEO, and its CFO, alleging or for other potential representatives to file motions toviolations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act be appointed as lead plaintiff. On December 7, 2020,and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended after several investors filed motions to be appointedcomplaint alleges that Aclaris artificially inflated its stock lead plaintiff, the court appointed a new lead plaintiffprice through false and misleading statements about and lead counsel. Discovery remains ongoing. PlaintiffsESKATA and the companys overall financial health, class certification motion is expected to be fully briefedincluding by (i) falsely representing that ESKATA was ef-by March 12, 2021, and summary judgment motions arefective and relatively painless, and (ii) failing to disclose due on October 20, 2021.that its advertising materials were misleading and likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny.Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc.,On April 17, 2020 defendants moved to dismiss the Case No. 19-cv-07118 (S.D.N.Y.) (LJL)amended complaint. The motion was fully briefed as of False Advertising August 2020. An oral argument for the motion is sched-uled to take place on February 25, 2021.Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (Aclaris) is a biopharmaceuti-cal company that identifies, develops, and commercial- In re Evolus Inc. Securities Litigation, Case izes therapies to address unmet needs in medical and aesthetic dermatology and immunology. Its lead prod- No. 1:20-cv-8647 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. 2020) uct, ESKATA, is a hydrogen peroxide topical solutionIntellectual Property Infringementused to treat raised seborrheic keratosis, a common non-malignant lesion. ESKATA was approved by FDAEvolus Inc. (Evolus) develops, produces, and markets on December 14, 2017. In the ensuing months, Aclarisclinical neurotoxins for aesthetic treatments. The com-made numerous statements in earnings calls claimingpanys only product is Jeuveau, which is a purified botu-that ESKATA was an effective and relatively painlesslinum toxin used for the temporary improvement in the treatment. Aclaris also represented in quarterly pressappearance of moderate to severe frown lines in adults. releases that sales of ESKATA were positively impactingBotox, manufactured by Allergan plc (Allergan) and company revenue and that Aclariss risk factors had notdistributed by Medytox Inc. (Medytox), is Jeuveaus changed materially since 2017. In fact, however, Aclarisdirect competitor.sales representatives had learned that the treatmentIn January 2019, Allergan and Medytox filed an ac-caused severe pain and scarring, and was lesstion against Evolus in front of the International Trade effective than expected. As a result, sales of ESKATACommission (ITC) alleging that the company stole collapsed, which Aclaris explained away by falselycertain trade secrets to develop Jeuveau. In February claiming that ESKATA was too effective, such that2019, Evolus began a campaign to publicize the launch physicians did not need to reorder the drug as quicklyof Jeuveau. In public statements the company touted as expected. In addition, the company made allegedlythe product as a propriety formulation of the botu-misleading statements in direct-to-consumer marketing,linum toxic type A complex, developed by Korean 37'