Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from PACER on 06/14/2021 at 07:05:01 (UTC).

Gutman v. FibroGen, Inc. et al

Case Summary

On April 9, 2021, Plaintiff Robert Gutman (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Pavithra Rajesh of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP filed a civil action against FibroGen, Enrique Conterno (“Conterno”) and James Schoeneck (“Schoeneck”) (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking compensatory damages for allegedly breaching various provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) in relation with purchase of FibroGen securities. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers presiding. 

 

The Plaintiff asserted that FibroGen is a biopharmaceutical company that develops medicines for the treatment of anemia, fibrotic disease, and cancer. In December 2019, the Company filed its New Drug Application (“NDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the approval of roxadustat for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease (“CKD”). On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, the Company revealed that, based on analyses using the pre-specified stratification factors, the Company “cannot conclude that roxadustat reduces the risk of (or is superior to) MACE+ in dialysis.” On this news, the Company’s share price fell $14.90, or 43%, to close at $19.74 per share on April 7, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff has alleged “Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain safety analyses submitted in connection with FibroGen’s NDA for roxudustat included post-hoc changes to stratification factors; (2) that, based on analyses using the pre-specified stratification factors, the Company could not conclude that roxadustat reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to epoetin-alfa; (3) that, as a result, the Company faced significant uncertainty that its NDA for roxadustat as a treatment for anemia of CKD would be approved by the FDA; 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 that “As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.”



There are two claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiffs. The first claim is for alleged violation of Section 10(b) of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against All Defendants. The second claim is for an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of The Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants.

 

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the court to adjudge this action as a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to award compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and the other Class members against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, along with other reasonable costs and relief as the Court may deem fit. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.




Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    4:21-CV-02725

  • Filing Date:

    04/15/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Finance - Security/Commodity/Exchange

  • Court:

    U.S. District Courts

  • Courthouse:

    California Northern District

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Robert Gutman

Defendants

FibroGen, Inc.

Enrique Conterno

James Schoeneck

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Pavithra Rajesh

Attorney at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Charles Henry Linehan

Attorney at Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Robert Vincent Prongay

Attorney at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

 

Court Documents

#9

(#9) NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice by Robert Gutman (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 6/4/2021) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

#8

(#8) Certificate of Interested Entities by Robert Gutman (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 4/16/2021) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

7 #1

Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording

#7

(#7) Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Case Management Statement due by 7/12/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/19/2021 02:00 PM. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bnsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2021) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

#6

(#6) Summons Issued as to Enrique Conterno, FibroGen, Inc., James Schoeneck. (bnsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2021) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

#4

(#4) Certificate of Interested Entities by Robert Gutman re #1 Complaint (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 4/15/2021) (Entered: 04/15/2021)

#3

(#3) CERTIFICATE of Counsel re #1 Complaint by Pavithra Rajesh on behalf of Robert Gutman (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 4/15/2021) (Entered: 04/15/2021)

#2

(#2) Proposed Summons. (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 4/15/2021) (Entered: 04/15/2021)

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-15844043.). Filed byRobert Gutman. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 4/15/2021) Modified on 4/16/2021 (bnsS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice by Robert Gutman (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 6/4/2021) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) Certificate of Interested Entities by Robert Gutman (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 4/16/2021) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Case Management Statement due by 7/12/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/19/2021 02:00 PM. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bnsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2021) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket#Electronic filing error. Filer did not add all interested parties when prompted. Re-file this document in its entirety and when prompted, search and enter all affiliates or corpor ate parents. Re: #4 Certificate of Interested Entities filed by Robert Gutman (bnsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2021) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) Summons Issued as to Enrique Conterno, FibroGen, Inc., James Schoeneck. (bnsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2021) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2021
  • Docket(#5) Case assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (mbcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2021) (Entered: 04/15/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) Certificate of Interested Entities by Robert Gutman re #1 Complaint (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 4/15/2021) (Entered: 04/15/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) CERTIFICATE of Counsel re #1 Complaint by Pavithra Rajesh on behalf of Robert Gutman (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 4/15/2021) (Entered: 04/15/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Proposed Summons. (Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 4/15/2021) (Entered: 04/15/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-15844043.). Filed byRobert Gutman. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rajesh, Pavithra) (Filed on 4/15/2021) Modified on 4/16/2021 (bnsS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FibroGen, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Charles H Linehan

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Pavithra Rajesh