b'reviewer had recommended against approval rendered For example, the court faulted defendantsthe companys statements misleading. Finally, the court held that defendants failure to disclose the payments for failing to disclose information concerningAcadia was making to doctors was actionable, because the high death rates of patients treatedAcadia publicly disclosed its other commercialization practices, giving rise to a duty to disclose such addi-with nuplazid with any degree of intensitytional, improper practices. and credibility to counter-balance theThe court further held that the complaint raised a information that it did disclose, which gavesufficiently strong inference of scienter because it alleged that (i) defendants tracked adverse events and investors a misleading impression about thehad access to information about Acadias payments to nuplazid death rate. doctors; (ii) nuplazid was Acadias only revenue source, making it more likely that defendants knew about the scheme to pay off doctors to prescribe the drug; and (iii) three directors resigned shortly after FDA approv-Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and on June 1,al, suggesting, when viewed in light of the other facts 2020, the court largely denied the motion. The courtalleged, that these directors wanted no part of the first held that some of the statements identified indrugs commercialization.the complaint were nonactionable, and thus granted the motion to dismiss as to these statements. AlthoughThe court thereafter directed plaintiff to file a second the court declined to analyze the complaint state- amended complaint removing the categories of nonac-ment-by-statement, it did provide examples of non-tionable statements identified by the court. Plaintiff did actionable representations. For example, the court heldso on June 16, 2020, and defendants again moved to that literally true reflections of Acadias financial resultsdismiss in August 2020. Briefing on the new motion to were not actionable. In addition, the court held that sev- dismiss was completed in November of 2020, and the eral statements fell under the PLSRAs safe harbor pro- motion remains pending before the court.visionincluding that we expect that usage should increase and that the number of patients on drug will likely build over time, and were going to show the benefits and were going to help guide the physicianThe court further held that the complaint in seeing why [nuplazid] would be their best choicebecause they expressed future expectations. Finally,raised a sufficiently strong inference the court held that certain statements in the complaintof scienter because it alleged that (i) were nonactionable opinions (e.g., we are confident nuplazid should become the standard of care) or defendants tracked adverse events and expressions of corporate optimism (e.g., this truly is had access to information about Acadias an impressive group). The court otherwise denied defendants motion topayments to doctors; (ii) nuplazid was dismiss, concluding that several statements at issue inAcadias only revenue source, making it the complaint were false and misleading by omission.more likely that defendants knew about For example, the court faulted defendants for failing to disclose information concerning the high death rates ofthe scheme to pay off doctors to prescribe patients treated with nuplazid with any degree of inten- the drug; and (iii) three directors resigned sity and credibility to counter-balance the information that it did disclose, which gave investors a misleadingshortly after FDA approval, suggesting, impression about the nuplazid death rate. This was sowhen viewed in light of the other facts even though trial data reflecting the high death rate was publicly accessible, because dismissal based on aalleged, that these directors wanted no truth on the market defense is generally inappropriatepart of the drugs commercialization.at the motion to dismiss stage. Similarly, the court held that defendants failure to disclose that FDAs primary 53'