Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has
Been Filed Against Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
WILMINGTON, Del. -- July 3, 2013
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
*Do you, or did you, own shares of Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ GM:
*Did you purchase your shares before December 18, 2012, or between December
18, 2012 and June 18, 2013?
*Did you lose money in your investment in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.?
*Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Vanda Pharmaceuticals
Inc. (“Vanda” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GM: VNDA) between December 18, 2012
and June 18, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its
officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Vanda during the Class Period, or purchased shares
prior to the Class Period and still hold Vanda, and wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, or at:
Vanda is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and
commercialization of products for the treatment of central nervous systems
disorders. The Company’s product portfolio includes tasimelteon, a compound
for the treatment of circadian rhythm sleep disorders (CRSD), which is
currently in clinical development for “Non-24,” a serious, rare CRSD that
affects a majority of totally blind individuals. The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s
business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the Company was
forced to unilaterally change the primary endpoint in the middle of Phase III
studies as it was already in possession of data suggesting that the original
primary endpoint was not going to be met; (2) the Company eliminated nighttime
total sleep as the primary endpoint in its studies as there was no discernible
difference in efficacy and safety in nighttime total sleep between those
patients deemed to have Non-24 and those patients with a normal circadian
rhythm; (3) the replacement primary endpoint installed to assess tasimelteon’s
efficacy and safety was created ex ante by the Company and has never been used
before in sleep-drug clinical trials, nor was it endorsed by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (“FDA”); and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the
Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
According to the Complaint, on June 19, 2013, The Street published an article
raising doubts about the quality and efficacy of Vanda’s clinical trial
procedure and test data. Among other issues, the article noted multiple
changes in the primary endpoint over the course of the trials, including a
change just one month before study results were published to a new primary
endpoint that has allegedly never been used before in sleep-drug clinical
trials, nor was it endorsed by the FDA. The article also states that Vanda was
forced to cut patient enrollment in the clinical trials in half because an
insufficient number of totally blind patients with Non-24 could not be
identified, and that ultimately less that 5% of the patients enrolled in the
trials suffered from Non-24 according to the “textbook definition” of the
On these revelations, shares in Vanda dropped more than 22%, closing at $8.51
per share on June 19, 2013, from a close of $10.92 per share on June 18, 2013,
on heavy trading volume of over 8 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 26, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is
typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not,
however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.
While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the
firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions,
shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court
of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.