b'The court also held that the Short Seller Report was not a corrective disclosure because it merely repackage[ed] already-public, not new, information.deadline extensions for trial sites to report positive data while denying similar extensions for negative data. The court held that the allegations in support of this claim were too vague, identifying so-called proper protocols that were allegedly circumvented without any specificity, such as what the protocols were, what industry standards required, and why defendants ac-tual presentation of the data did not meet the required standards. Thus, plaintiffs took for granted a key part of what they needed to allegethat defendants review of the data was in fact deceptive. For the same reasons, the court held that plaintiffs failed to plead scienter as to this claim.Finally, the court independently held that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation. With respect to plaintiffs claims based on allegedly misleading statements, the court noted that one of the two stock drops cited by plaintiffs followed the companys disclosure of disappointing data in the PIVOT-02 trial, which was not the trial de-scribed in the 30-fold increase chart that was alleged to be misleading. As a result, the court held that there was no plausible allegation in the amended complaint link-ing the stock drop to the misleading statements. The court also held that the Short Seller Report was not a corrective disclosure because it merely repackage[ed] already-public, not new, information. With respect to plaintiffs deceptive scheme claim, the court held that the disclosure of negative data, leading to a stock drop, did not constitute a corrective disclosure of the compa-nys alleged data manipulation because the stock price drop was not plausibly based on anything other than disappointing results released at a later stage of the trial.The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On August 10, 2020, plaintiffs filed a sec-ond amended consolidated class action complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the new complaint on September 17, 2020, and the motion was fully briefed as of October 29, 2020. On December 30, 2020, the court granted Nektars motion to dismiss the second amend-ed complaint for generally the same reasons as its order dismissing the first amended complaint, including that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity, scienter, or loss causation. The court denied leave to amend a third time. On January 29, 2021, plaintiffs appealed the district courts dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is expected to be fully briefed by early July 2021.46'