| Company: | Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. |
| Ticker Symbol: | NASD: TARO |
| Class Period: | February 20, 2003 to July 29, 2004 |
| Date Filed: | Aug-05-04 |
| Lead Plaintiff Deadline: | Oct-04-04 |
| Court: | Southern District, NY |
| Allegations: |
A securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. ("Taro Pharmaceutical" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:TARO), between February 20, 2003 and July 29, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants Taro, Barrie Levitt (Executive Chairman), Aaron Levitt (President), Daniel Moros (Vice Chairman), Samuel Rubenstein (General Manager) and Kevin Connelly (Chief Financial Officer). According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by knowingly or recklessly issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.
The complaint alleges that Taro presented itself as a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic drugs, and that the Company claimed throughout the Class Period that it had successfully expanded its product line to include proprietary drugs and novel drug delivery systems. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company suffered from undisclosed adverse factors that were having a negative impact on Taro's financial performance and condition including but not limited to the following: (a) defendants were unable to maintain profitability in Taro's generic drug division or generate free cash flow from the introduction of higher margin proprietary products sufficient to offset the expense of its new product launches; (b) defendants had failed to properly record the full expense of developing new proprietary drug products, such that it was materially false and misleading for defendants to state that the roll-out of Taro's new proprietary drugs was not and would not adversely affect the Company's near- or long-term profitability; (c) defendants understated the negative effects of increasing competition on the Company's financial performance; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Taro was operating according to plan or that Taro could maintain profitability in the near-term.
The truth emerged on July 29, 2004. On that date, the Company announced a second-quarter loss of $0.31 per share, far below the Company-guided analyst consensus estimate of $0.44 per share earnings, and that drug sales had dropped to $49.1 million from $74.8 million in the prior second quarter. On this news, Taro's share price fell more than $11.50 per share to a new multi-year low of $18.68 per share.
If you acquired the securities of the defendants during the Class Period you may, no later than the Lead Plaintiff Deadline shown above, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice. You may also choose to remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff must meet certain requirements.
The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants Taro, Barrie Levitt (Executive Chairman), Aaron Levitt (President), Daniel Moros (Vice Chairman), Samuel Rubenstein (General Manager) and Kevin Connelly (Chief Financial Officer). According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by knowingly or recklessly issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.
The complaint alleges that Taro presented itself as a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic drugs, and that the Company claimed throughout the Class Period that it had successfully expanded its product line to include proprietary drugs and novel drug delivery systems. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company suffered from undisclosed adverse factors that were having a negative impact on Taro's financial performance and condition including but not limited to the following: (a) defendants were unable to maintain profitability in Taro's generic drug division or generate free cash flow from the introduction of higher margin proprietary products sufficient to offset the expense of its new product launches; (b) defendants had failed to properly record the full expense of developing new proprietary drug products, such that it was materially false and misleading for defendants to state that the roll-out of Taro's new proprietary drugs was not and would not adversely affect the Company's near- or long-term profitability; (c) defendants understated the negative effects of increasing competition on the Company's financial performance; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Taro was operating according to plan or that Taro could maintain profitability in the near-term.
The truth emerged on July 29, 2004. On that date, the Company announced a second-quarter loss of $0.31 per share, far below the Company-guided analyst consensus estimate of $0.44 per share earnings, and that drug sales had dropped to $49.1 million from $74.8 million in the prior second quarter. On this news, Taro's share price fell more than $11.50 per share to a new multi-year low of $18.68 per share.
If you acquired the securities of the defendants during the Class Period you may, no later than the Lead Plaintiff Deadline shown above, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice. You may also choose to remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff must meet certain requirements.
If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this class action please fill in our form on the right to submit your complaint.
If your injustice does not match the complaint described above, please use this form to register your complaint. Thank you.
