In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. 3:14–cv–367–SI.
| Citation | 117 F.Supp.3d 1145 |
| Decision Date | 05 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:14–cv–367–SI. |
| Parties | In re GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Portland, OR, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Chicago, IL, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Laurence M. Rosen, Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Kristen Tranetzki, Angeli Ungar Law Group LLC, Portland, OR, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Scott N. Auby, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Washington D.C., for Defendant Mark J. Ahn.
Robert L. Aldisert, Perkins Coie LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendants Rudolph Nisi, Sanford Hillsberg, Steven Kriegsman, Stephen Galliker, and Richard Chin.
Lois O. Rosenbaum, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, OR, Paul R. Bessette, Michael J. Biles, James P. Sullivan, King & Spalding LLP, Austin, TX, for Defendants Galena Biopharma, Inc., Ryan M. Dunlap, Remy Bernarda, and Mark Schwartz.
James T. McDermott, Ciaran P.A. Connelly, Ball Janik LLP, Portland, OR, Jacob S. Frenkel, Russell D. Duncan, Renee B. Kramer, Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A., Potomac, MD, for Defendants Michael McCarthy and The DreamTeam Group, LLC.
Joseph C. Arellano, Daniel L. Keppler, Kennedy Watts Arellano LLP, Portland, OR, Edward Gartenberg, Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Lidingo Holdings, LLC and Kamilla Bjorlin.
This putative class action securities fraud case is brought by shareholders ("Plaintiffs") of Defendant Galena Biopharma, Inc. ("Galena" or "Company"). Plaintiffs allege that Galena, certain members of Galena's Board of Directors ("Board"), and executive officers of Galena engaged in a fraudulent scheme to promote Galena and increase its stock price so that many of Galena's officers and directors could (and did) sell their personally-owned Galena stock at artificially high prices, in a "pump and dump" insider trading scheme. Plaintiffs further allege that The DreamTeam Group LLC ("DreamTeam"), its Managing Member Michael McCarthy, its employee or agent Thomas Michael Meyer,1 Lidingo Holdings, LLC ("Lidingo"), and Lidingo's Managing Member Kamilla Bjorlin,2 participated in the scheme by publishing bullish articles, comments, blogs, posts, and email blasts, including having authors publish articles using false aliases, without including the required disclosure that they were being paid by Galena to try to inflate its stock price.3
Before the Court are five motions to dismiss: (1) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Rudolph Nisi, Sanford Hillsberg, Steven Kriegsman, Stephen Galliker, and Richard Chin (collectively "Outside Directors") (Dkt. 80); (2) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Mark J. Ahn (Dkt. 81); (3) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Mark Schwartz, Ryan Dunlap, and Remy Bernarda (collectively "Management Defendants") and Galena4 (Dkt. 82); (4) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Lidingo and Bjorlin (collectively "Lidingo Defendants") (Dkt. 136); and (5) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants DreamTeam and McCarthy (collectively "DreamTeam Defendants") (Dkt. 138). For the following reasons, the pending motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted only when there is no cognizable legal theory to support the claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.2010). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wilson v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2012) ; Daniels–Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.2010). To be entitled to a presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint "may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively." Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir.2011). All reasonable inferences from the factual allegations must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Newcal Indus. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1043 n. 2 (9th Cir.2008). The court need not, however, credit the plaintiff's legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to "plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation." Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216. "A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).
As alleged in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("Consolidated Complaint" or "CAC"), Galena is a biotechnology company based in Lake Oswego, Oregon. In 2007 the Company was spun off from its parent, CytRx Corporation ("CytRx"). CytRx remained Galena's majority owner until 2008. In connection with the spin-off, Ahn was appointed a director of Galena. Ahn became Galena's President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") in March 2011.
Galena focuses on the development and commercialization of targeted oncology treatments. Galena's only commercial-stage product is Abstral®, a propriety form of fentanyl, an opiate analgesic. Fentanyl can be abused and has been resold as a street drug. At least four other companies already offer generic fentanyl in the United States. As alleged by Plaintiffs, Galena is "far from obtaining financial success from selling Abstral." Galena also is pursuing the development of cancer therapeutics, including its main product candidate, NeuVaxTM, for the treatment of breast cancer.
Galena's relationship with DreamTeam dates back to 2008, and its relationship with Lidingo dates back to 2012. Galena previously had hired these investor relations firms to tout Galena's stock in advance of stock offerings. In early summer 2013, Galena did not have any open contracts with either company.
In July 2013, Ahn asked Galena's Vice President of Marketing & Communications, Remy Bernarda, to interview three investor relations firms that could potentially increase Galena's stock price. Two of these companies were Tiberend Strategic Advisors ("Tiberend") and DreamTeam. Bernarda recommended that Galena hire Tiberend, a traditional, full service investor relations firm specializing in the healthcare and life sciences industry. Bernarda recommended that Galena not hire DreamTeam. Bernarda noted that Tiberend treated writers as "journalists," unlike DreamTeam. Bernarda further noted that if Galena hired DreamTeam, she believed it would cause "issues." Galena hired Tiberend at $3,500 per month for an initial three-month trial.
Despite Bernarda's recommendation to the contrary, Ahn also hired DreamTeam. DreamTeam began its work under a 90–day, $25,000 contract for "Platinum Services" dated July 23, 2013 and a 240–day, $50,000 contract also dated in July 2013. The total monthly payment to DreamTeam was approximately $14,583.
In addition, Ahn signed a contract with Lidingo on August 1, 2013, which obliged Galena to pay Lidingo a cash fee of $20,000 per month plus expenses. The contract also gave Lidingo an option to buy 250,000 shares of Galena common stock at an exercise price based on the day the agreement closed, 100,000 shares of which vested immediately. Plaintiffs allege that Ahn did not have the corporate authority to award stock options.
Plaintiffs allege that Galena and its management and directors entered into an unlawful promotional scheme with DreamTeam and Lidingo artificially to inflate the stock price of Galena using a variety of different channels. Galena intended that DreamTeam and Lidingo would place misleading articles on investor websites touting Galena. DreamTeam and Lidingo did so, often using third parties and aliases that falsely claimed to be established, credible investment professionals. The articles did not disclose the paid relationship with Galena and often included false disclaimers that they were not paid promotions. Galena required that it approve every article before that article could be published, and either Ahn or Bernarda approved each article.
By way of example, on or about August 6, 2013, DreamTeam submitted to the online investment advice website Seeking Alpha6 an article entitled "Galena Biopharma Presents an Attractive Investment Opportunity." This article recommended investment in Galena stock, but failed to disclose any financial relationship between the author, who was identified only as "Wonderful Wizard," and either Galena or DreamTeam. The article affirmatively misrepresented that it was not a paid promotion.
Another article placed by DreamTeam touting Galena in Seeking Alpha appeared on November 22, 2013, this time by an author identified only as "Kingmaker," who also failed to disclose any relationship with either Galena or DreamTeam. These two articles about Galena in Seeking Alpha were presented as being written by two different people, each recommending investment in Galena, but were allegedly actually written by the same author.7 As of November 26, 2013, DreamTeam had caused to be published 18 articles about Galena on Seeking Alpha.
DreamTeam and Lidingo would also monitor social...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Cannavest Corp. Sec. Litig.
...practices were conservative and being adhered to.Id. at *13.Finally, Plaintiffs rely on two out-of-circuit cases—In re Galena Biopharma, Inc., 117 F.Supp.3d 1145 (D. Ore. 2015), and SEC v. Wealth Strategy Partners, LC, 14 Civ. 2427, 2015 WL 3603621 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2015). (See Pltf. Opp. ......
-
Schaffer Family Investors, LLC v. Sonnier
...evidence that a statement was made by the party to whom it is attributed. See In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Sec. Litig. , No. 3:14–CV–367–SI, 117 F.Supp.3d 1145, 1186, 2015 WL 4643474, at *29 (D.Or. Aug. 5, 2015).While some of Plaintiffs' pleadings are generalized allegations of what often h......
-
In re Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P. Sec. Litig.
...(Alaska) Inc. , 643 F.3d 681, 691 (9th Cir. 2011) ; Sharette , 127 F.Supp.3d at 91 ; In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Sec. Litig. , 117 F.Supp.3d 1145, 1179 (D. Or. 2015). Instead, courts ask whether a reasonable investor might rely on the statement. In general, "an express misrepresentation of......
-
Smith v. LifeVantage Corp.
...... pyramid scheme. [ 30 ] The case was transferred to the District. of Utah ... Supreme Court recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson [ 178 ] or Affiliated Ute ... Litig. , 777 F.3d 9, 19 (1st Cir. 2015); In re. Petrobras Sec. , 862 F.3d 250, 264 (2d Cir. 2017);. ...2016); In re. Galena Biopharma, Inc. Sec. Litig. , 117 F.Supp.3d ......