IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TEIX NORTHERN DISTRICT OF KLINOIS
EASTERN DMSION
ERIC HOIRNE, individually and on behalf 1
of all others similarly situated, __-. 1
-- )
Plaintiff, )
v. 1 42c 3912
NEOPHARM, INC., JOHN N. KAPOOR, i
JAMES 3%. HUSSEY, and AQUILUR RAHMAN, )
! ) &XY TRIAL
Defendants. 1
GERALDINE
CLASS ACTION COMPLA~T
FOR VIOLATIONS OF F'EDE~L SECUmTmS LAW
Plaintiff alleges the following based upon the investigation of Plaintiffs counsel,
included a review of United States Securities and Exchange Commission (""SEC") tings by
NeoPharm Corporation ("NeoPharm" or the "Company"), as well as regulatory filings and reports,
securities analysts' reports and advisories about the Company, press releases and other public
statements issued by r;he Company, and media reports about the ,Company:
NATURlE OF TEE ACTION
1, This is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of NeoPharm
between September 25,200O and April 19,2002, both dates inclusive (the "Class Petiod"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). This action
arises from a series of false and misleading statements,,
by Defendants concerning the
drug Liposorne Encapsulated Paclitaxel ("LEP") that the Company was developing.
2. Defendants aIso made materially false statements to Phannacia & Upjohn ("Pharmacia")
in order to induce Pharmacia to enter into a licensing agreement for LEP, whereby Pharmacia would
provide substantial funding to LEP's clinical trials, and obtain the exclusive rights to
0 LEP. Moreover, Defendants fded to disclose to the public that Pharmacia was studying a
SNIPPETS:
NeoPharm Corporation, as well as regulatory filings and reports,
securities analysts' reports and advisories about the Company,
This is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of NeoPharm
drug Liposorne Encapsulated Paclitaxel that the Company was developing.
Defendants aIso made materially false statements to Phannacia & Upjohn
in order to induce Pharmacia to enter into a licensing agreement for LEP,
provide substantial funding to LEP's clinical trials, and obtain the exclusive rights to
Defendants fded to disclose to the public that Pharmacia was studying a different
On April 22, 2002, Pharmacia disclosed that Neopharm had made misleading statements
During the Class Period, NeoPharm's stock traded as high as $41.0625 per share.
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 5 $78jand 7&, and Rule 1 Ob-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC,
NeoPharm is developing a portfolio of seven anti-cancer drugs,
Because of the Individual Defendants' positions with the Company,
operations, products, growth, financial statements, and financial condition, as alleged
Defendants each had a duty to disseminate promptly, accurate and truthful information with
The Individual Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions during the Class
Each of the Defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse
in connection with the benefits related to LEP; and caused Plaintiiand other members ofthe
Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to FederaI Rule of Civil Procedure
offricers and directors ofthe Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate
Whether the market price ofNeoPharm's common stock during the Class Period
was LEP (the "Pharmacia Agreement").
is to receive royalties on any foreign sales, and in the United States NeoPharm has the right
|
