Lawsuit Overview
February 16, 2021 - The case was voluntarily dismissed.
August 10, 2020 - An investor in shares of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by MEI Pharma, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between August 2, 2017, and July 1, 2020.
San Diego, CA based MEI Pharma, Inc., a late-stage pharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of various therapies for the treatment of cancer. MEI Pharma, Inc. reported that its Total Revenue rose from $1.62 million for the 12 months period that ended on June 30, 2018, to $4.91 million for the 12 months period that ended on June 30, 2019, and that its Net Loss over those respective time periods declined from $40.06 million to $16.81 million.
On July 2, 2020, during pre-market hours MEI Pharma, Inc announced that it was discontinuing the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial. Specifically, MEI Pharma, Inc advised that an interim futility analysis of the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial, undertaken by the study's Independent Data Monitoring Committee ( IDMC ), has demonstrated it was unlikely to meet the primary endpoint of overall survival compared to the control group, and that [b]ased on the outcome of the interim analysis, the decision was made to discontinue the recruitment of patients and end the study, which was based on a lack of efficacy and not on safety concerns.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP) common shares between August 2, 2017, and July 1, 2020, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between August 2, 2017, and July 1, 2020, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that MEI Pharma had overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as an AML treatment for the target population, that consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival, that all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial condition and prospects for Pracinostat, and that as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.