Credit: nikkimeel/Adobe StockLawsuits Mount Over Moderna's RSV Vaccine
The newest case is the fifth to bring similar allegations against Moderna in the same court, with three others, all filed Nov. 5, surfaced by Law.com Radar.
November 13, 2024 at 02:09 PM
2 minute read
The stack of derivative actions against Moderna is growing in the District of Massachusetts, with the latest case challenging representations of the company's RSV vaccine's success filed on Nov. 12.
The case is the fifth to bring similar allegations against Moderna in the same court, with three others, all filed Nov. 5, surfaced by Law.com Radar.
Another was filed Oct. 28.
The Rosen Law Firm is representing plaintiffs in all five cases, with Bragar Eagel & Squire appearing alongside the firm in the most recently filed.
Rigrodsky Law and Grabar Law Offices are counsel in another, and Robbins LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz entered appearances in one case each.
The newest case has not been assigned to a judge, while U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani is overseeing the four earlier suits.
The litigation involves the development of mRESVIA, Moderna's vaccine aimed at protecting older adults from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Attorneys for the shareholder plaintiffs did not respond for comment.
In January 2023, Moderna, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Massachusetts, announced clinical trials showed mRESVIA was 83.7% effective against RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease.
In May of this year, Moderna announced a 78.7% efficacy rate, which was followed by a 5.9% drop in Moderna's stock price.
In June, the complaint stated, stock prices dipped another 11% after a presentation to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committee indicated mRESVIA was between 49.9% and 50.3% effective, "significantly lower than competing vaccines."
The complaint, which names eight causes of action, claims Moderna leadership failed to tell investors mRESVIA was less effective than originally represented.
It claimed the company breached its fiduciary duties by overstating prospects for the vaccine's clinical and commercial success between Jan. 18, 2023, the day after Moderna announced the results of a clinical trial, and June 25, 2024, the day before the presentation to the CDC committee.
It also alleges that as the result of Moderna's stock being artificially inflated, multiple board members who knew of the discrepancy profited from insider trading and Moderna overpaid $166.3 million for stock buybacks.
A spokesperson for Moderna did not immediately respond for comment.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
US Judge Dismisses Securities Litigation Against Insurance Underwriter
2 minute read
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
