Curran v. FreshPet, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Industriens Pensions for Sikring v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.

    620 F. Supp. 3d 167 (D.N.J. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    In light of the FDA's unambiguous feedback at the Fall 2019 Meeting, the FY20 Guidance and subsequent forward-looking statements—which relied on durable Alaris sales in FY20—was unmoored from the Company's immediate reality. See, e.g., Curran v. Freshpet, Inc., 2018 WL 394878, at *5 (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2018) (financial projection actionable where defendants failed to disclose manufacturing problems); In re AT&T Corp. Sec. Litig., 2002 WL 31190863, at *15 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2002) (growth projections actionable where at odds with "serious operational problems"); In re Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Sec. Litig., 2020 WL 599543, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2020). The extraordinary risk that FDA action posed to Alaris sales in light of the product's software problems, and the lengthy period of time that BD would require to resolve these problems, were highly material.

  2. Antipodean Domestic Partners, LP v. Clovis Oncology, Inc.

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30809 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)   Cited 5 times

    A non-actionable forward-looking statement is one of projected revenues, earnings, or other financial items, plans and objectives for future operations, or future economic performance (15 USC § 77z-2 [I] [1]). Statements that encompass representations or omissions of present fact are not forward-looking, and thus, not protected by the PSLRA (Curran v Freshpet, Inc., 2018 WL 394878, *4, 2018 US Dist LEXIS 5833, *10 [D NJ, Jan. 9, 2018, 16-CV-2263 (MCA)]; Mallen v Alphatec Holdings, Inc., 861 F Supp 2d 1111, 1126 [SD Cal 2012], affd sub nom Fresno County Employees' Retirement Assn. v Alphatec Holdings, Inc., 607 Fed Appx 694 [9th Cir 2015]). Statements concerning historical or current facts are also not forward-looking, even if couched in terms of the future (In re Copper Mountain Sec. Litig., 311 F Supp 2d 857, 880 [ND Ca 2004]; In re Complete Mgt. Sec. Litig., 153 F Supp 2d 314, 340 [SD NY 2001]). A "mixed present/future statement," one that is partly about the future and partly about the present, is not actionable "with respect to the part of the statement that refers to the" future (In re Vivendi, S.A. Sec. Litig., 838 F3d at 246, quoting Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v Tellabs, Inc., 513 F3d 702, 705 [7th Cir 2008]; see also Iowa Pub. Empls.' Retirement Sys. v MF Global, Ltd., 620 F3d 137, 144 [2d Cir 2010]).