Innate Pharma S.A.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: 12/22/2020
SUMMARY OF CASE:
A securities class action has been filed against Innate Pharma S.A. (IPHA) on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Innate securities between March 10, 2020 through September 8, 2020. This case has been filed in the USDC – C.D.CA.
On October 23, 2018, Innate and AstraZeneca announced an expansion to a pre-existing collaboration agreement. As part of this agreement, AstraZeneca purchased 9.8% of newly-issued equity stake in Innate and, inter alia, obtained full oncology rights to monalizumab, a first-in-class humanized anti-NKG2A antibody. As part of this agreement, Innate was to receive $100 million in milestone payments at the start of the first Phase 3 clinical trial for monalizumab.
On September 8, 2020, Innate announced sudden changes to its $100 million deal with AstraZeneca. Innate would no longer receive a $100 million payment when it started its first Phase 3 clinical trial of monalizumab. Instead the company would receive $50 million at the start of the trial and another $50 million when interim analysis proved clinical activity.
Following this news, Innate American Depositary shares dropped $1.62 per share, or over 26.6%, to close at $4.45 per share.
The Complaint alleges that Defendant’s statements were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company’s business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innate touted the results of their various Phase 2 trials as being within expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure investors that they were eligible for the $100 million payment upon first dosing of Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely disclose their renegotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100 million payment into two $50 million payments, to be partially contingent on performance during the Phase 3 trials; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.