Jackie 888, Inc. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 112519 MASUP, SUCV20181591BLS2

Docket Nº:SUCV20181591BLS2
Opinion Judge:Janet L. Sanders, Justice
Party Name:Jackie 888, Inc. Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
Judge Panel:Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Sanders, Janet L., J.
Case Date:November 25, 2019
Court:Superior Court of Massachusetts
 
FREE EXCERPT

Jackie 888, Inc. Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated

v.

Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

No. SUCV20181591BLS2

Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, Business Litigation Session

November 25, 2019

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Sanders, Janet L., J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Janet L. Sanders, Justice

This is a putative class action alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933. It is brought on behalf of individuals and entities who purchased stock in an initial public offering (IPO) of the defendant Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Tokai) that occurred on September 17, 2014. Plaintiff Hao Wu first lodged a claim against Tokai alleging these violations in a suit filed here in 2016; that case was removed to federal court, then remanded to this Court. Hao Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceutical, Inc., Civ. No. 2016-3725-BLS 2 (the 2016 Action). Plaintiff Jackie 888, Inc. then asserted the same claims in the instant action, which was consolidated with the 2016 Action on July 10, 2018. The 2016 Action was later dismissed because of plaintiff Hao Wu’s failure to respond to outstanding discovery requests. The instant case is now before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. This Court concludes that the motion must be DENIED .

This Court has already summarized the factual allegations lodged against Tokai in a Memorandum of Decision dated January 8, 2019 denying Tokai’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the 2016 Action. Briefly stated, plaintiff alleges that Tokai made misleading statements in its IPO’s Registration Statement and Prospectus concerning Tokai’s efforts to develop the drug Galeterone in the treatment of prostate cancer. This Court has also summarized the procedural history of both the 2016 Action and the instant case in a second decision dated December 14, 2018 on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Class Allegations. As stated therein, plaintiff Jackie 888 originally filed its claim against Tokai in California, then dismissed that lawsuit and refiled in this Court, where the 2016 Action brought by plaintiff Hao Wu was then pending...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP