MEI Pharma, Inc.

Period: 08/02/2017 to 07/01/2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: 10/09/2020

SUMMARY OF CASE:

A securities class action has been filed against MEI Pharma, Inc. (MEIP) on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired MEI Pharma securities between August 2, 2017 through July 1, 2020.  This case has been filed in the USDC – S.D.CA.

MEI Pharma was founded in 2000 and is based in San Diego, California.  The Company was formerly known as Marshall Edwards, Inc. and changed its name to MEI Pharma, Inc. in July 2012.  MEI Pharma is a late-stage pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development of various therapies for the treatment of cancer.  MEI Pharma’s clinical drug candidates include, among others, Pracinostat, an oral histone deacetylase (“HDAC”) inhibitor.

MEI Pharma and Helsinn Healthcare SA, a Swiss pharmaceutical corporation (“Helsinn”), with which MEI Pharma had an exclusive worldwide license, development, manufacturing and commercialization agreement for Pracinostat in acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”), myelodysplastic syndrome, and other potential indications (the “Helsinn License Agreement”), were evaluating Pracinostat in, among other studies, a pivotal Phase 3 global registration clinical trial for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy (the “Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial”).  The Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial, which was initiated in June 2017, was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that would enroll worldwide approximately 500 adults with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy.  Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Pracinostat or placebo with azacitidine as background therapy.  The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival.55279B202

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) MEI Pharma had overstated Pracinostat’s potential efficacy as an AML treatment for the target population; (ii) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company’s financial condition and prospects for Pracinostat; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 2, 2020, during pre-market hours, MEI Pharma issued a press release announcing that it was discontinuing the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial.  Specifically, the Company advised that an interim futility analysis of the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial, undertaken by the study’s Independent Data Monitoring Committee (“IDMC”), “has demonstrated it was unlikely to meet the primary endpoint of overall survival compared to the control group,” and that “[b]ased on the outcome of the interim analysis, the decision was made to discontinue the recruitment of patients and end the study,” which “was based on a lack of efficacy and not on safety concerns.”

Following MEI Pharma’s announcement, the Company’s stock price fell $0.78 per share, or 18.27%, to close at $3.49 per share on July 2, 2020.