This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 08/01/2022 at 11:04:14 (UTC).

GORLAMARI v. VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al

Case Summary

On June 06, 2022, Kranthi Gorlamari (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Lee Albert of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, filed a civil action against Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Verrica” or the “Company”), Ted White, P. Terence Kohler Jr., and A. Brian Davis (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking damages for allegedly disseminating materially false and/or misleading information and/or failure to disclose material facts. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg presiding.

This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Verrica securities between May 28, 2021 and May 24, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”). 

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged, “Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there were manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where Verrica’s contract manufacturer produced bulk solution for VP-102; (2) that these deficiencies were not remediated when Verrica resubmitted its NDA for VP-12 for molluscum; (3) that the foregoing presented significant risks to Verrica obtaining regulatory approval of VP-102 for molluscum; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “During the Class Period, Defendants carried out a plan, scheme and course of conduct which was intended to and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged herein; and (ii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Verrica’s securities at artificially inflated prices. In furtherance of this unlawful scheme, plan and course of conduct, Defendants, and each defendant, took the actions set forth herein.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Defendants had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and/or omissions of material facts set forth herein, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to ascertain and to disclose such facts, even though such facts were available to them. Such defendants’ material misrepresentations and/or omissions were done knowingly or recklessly and for the purpose and effect of concealing Verrica’s financial well-being and prospects from the investing public and supporting the artificially inflated price of its securities.”

Plaintiff additionally alleged “As demonstrated by Defendants’ overstatements and/or misstatements of the Company’s business, operations, financial well-being, and prospects throughout the Class Period, Defendants, if they did not have actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and/or omissions alleged, were reckless in failing to obtain such knowledge by deliberately refraining from taking those steps necessary to discover whether those statements were false or misleading.”

The plaintiff stated two claims for relief, including allegations of violation of section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested a judgment seeking to determine this action as a proper class action and an award of compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs, expenses, and counsel and expert fees. 

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    2:22-CV-02226

  • Filing Date:

    06/06/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Finance - Security/Commodity/Exchange

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KRANTHI GORLAMARI

Defendants

VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

TED WHITE

P. TERENCE KOHLER JR.

A. BRIAN DAVIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Lee Albert

Attorney at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

230 Park Avenue, Suite 530

New York, NY 10169

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #2

Designation Form

1 #3

Case Management Track Form

#2

(#2) Summons Issued as to A. BRIAN DAVIS, P. TERENCE KOHLER JR., VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and TED WHITE. Forwarded To: counsel on 6/7/22. (mbh) (Entered: 06/07/2022)

#3

(#3) 12(b) PROCEDURAL ORDER (sl) (Entered: 06/09/2022)

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/09/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) 12(b) PROCEDURAL ORDER (sl) (Entered: 06/09/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Summons Issued as to A. BRIAN DAVIS, P. TERENCE KOHLER JR., VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and TED WHITE. Forwarded To: counsel on 6/7/22. (mbh) (Entered: 06/07/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number APAEDC-15966074.), filed by KRANTHI GORLAMARI. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Designation Form, #3 Case Management Track Form)(Albert, Lee) (Entered: 06/06/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Albert Lee