From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Utesch v. Lannett Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Aug 12, 2021
Civil Action 16-5932 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2021)

Summary

In Utesch, the district court noted in the background section that the plaintiff's case involved three categories of misstatements: (1) “Lannett's growth was the result of competitive market forces..

Summary of this case from Halman Aldubi Provident & Pension Funds Ltd. v. Teva Pharm. Indus.

Opinion

Civil Action 16-5932

08-12-2021

JOHN UTESCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LANNETT COMPANY, INC., ARTHUR P. BEDROSIAN, MARTIN P. GALVAN, Defendants.


ORDER

Wendy Beetlestone, J.

AND NOW, this 12th day of August 2021, upon consideration of Plaintiffs University of the following: Puerto Rico Retirement System and Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds' Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 121), Defendants Lannett Company, Inc., Arthur P. Bedrosian, and Martin P. Galvan's Response thereto (ECF No. 156), and Plaintiffs' Reply in further support thereof (ECF No. 168); Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Jennifer Marietta-Westberg (ECF No. 175), Defendants' Response thereto (ECF No. 180), and Plaintiffs' Reply in further support thereof (ECF No. 181); and, Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Chad Coffman (ECF No. 177), Plaintiffs' Response thereto (ECF No. 179), and Defendants' Reply in further support thereof (ECF No. 182); and, following oral argument held on the Motion for Class Certification on May 24, 2021 (ECF No. 170) and a hearing on Defendants' Motion to Exclude on July 27, 2021 (ECF 191), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion entered this day, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude (ECF 175) is DENIED;

2. Defendants' Motion to Exclude (ECF 177) is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (ECF 121) is GRANTED, and the following class is CERTIFIED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):

a. All persons and entities who purchased or acquired the publicly traded common stock of Lannett Company, Inc. (“Lannett” or the “Company”) during the period from July 15, 2014 and October 31, 2017, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and who were damaged thereby (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

4. Lead Plaintiff University of Puerto Rico Retirement System and Plaintiff Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds are appointed as Class Representatives.

5. Lead Counsel Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP is appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).


Summaries of

Utesch v. Lannett Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Aug 12, 2021
Civil Action 16-5932 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2021)

In Utesch, the district court noted in the background section that the plaintiff's case involved three categories of misstatements: (1) “Lannett's growth was the result of competitive market forces..

Summary of this case from Halman Aldubi Provident & Pension Funds Ltd. v. Teva Pharm. Indus.
Case details for

Utesch v. Lannett Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN UTESCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LANNETT COMPANY, INC., ARTHUR P…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 12, 2021

Citations

Civil Action 16-5932 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2021)

Citing Cases

Remick v. City of Philadelphia

The Court notes that Hassine and Baby Neal are still routinely cited by courts in this Circuit, including as…

Porter v. Graftech Int'l

In response, UPR Retirement System points the Court to the decision in Utesch v. lannett Co., Inc., Case…