DOCSLIB.ORG

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited Case 3:17-cv-06436-DEA Document 101 Filed 08/25/20 Page 1 of 41 PageID: 2679 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE: DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES Case No. 3:17-cv-06436-PGS-DEA LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL H. ROGERS IN SUPPORT OF (I) LEAD PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND (II) LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES Case 3:17-cv-06436-DEA Document 101 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 41 PageID: 2680 I, MICHAEL H. ROGERS, declare as follows pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746: 1. I am a partner of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP (“Labaton Sucharow”). Labaton Sucharow serves as Court-appointed Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi (“Mississippi PERS”) and the Settlement Class in the Action. I have been actively involved in prosecuting and resolving the Action, am familiar with its proceedings, and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein based upon my supervision and participation in all material aspects of the Action.1 2. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I submit this declaration in support of Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation. I also submit this declaration in support of Lead Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Payment of Litigation Expenses. Both motions have the full support of Lead Plaintiff. See Declaration of Ta’Shia S. Gordon, dated August 19, 2020, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.2 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 3. The proposed Settlement now before the Court provides for the resolution of all claims in the Action, and related claims, in exchange for a cash payment of $9,000,000. As 1 All capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined shall have the meanings provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of May 12, 2020 (ECF No. 95-1) (the “Stipulation”), which was entered into by and among Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (“Dr. Reddy’s” or the “Company”); Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.; Abhijit Mukherjee; G.V. Prasad; Saumen Chakraborty; and Satish Reddy (collectively, “Defendants”). 2 Citations to “Exhibit” or “Ex.___” herein refer to exhibits to this Declaration. For clarity, citations to exhibits that have attached exhibits will be referenced as “Ex. __-__.” The first numerical reference is to the designation of the entire exhibit attached hereto and the second alphabetical reference is to the exhibit designation within the exhibit itself. 1 Case 3:17-cv-06436-DEA Document 101 Filed 08/25/20 Page 3 of 41 PageID: 2681 detailed herein, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel respectfully submit that the Settlement represents a very favorable result for the Settlement Class in light of the significant risks of continuing to litigate the Action. 4. This case has been vigorously litigated from its commencement in August 2017 through the execution of the Stipulation. The Settlement was achieved only after Lead Counsel, inter alia, as detailed herein: (i) conducted a thorough and wide-ranging investigation concerning the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations made by Defendants, which included a review and analysis of publicly available information, interviews with 10 confidential witnesses who were former Dr. Reddy’s employees that were familiar with the Company’s Indian manufacturing operations and other potentially relevant information, and consultation with experts on pharmaceutical manufacturing and FDA regulatory compliance, as well as market efficiency, loss causation, and damages; (ii) prepared and filed a detailed Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 36); (iii) researched and drafted an opposition (ECF No. 48) to Defendants’ comprehensive motion to dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 47), which the Court granted in part and denied in part; (iv) moved for class certification (ECF Nos. 65-66); (v) engaged in fact discovery efforts, which led to the analysis of approximately 132,244 pages of documents produced by Defendants; (vi) defended the depositions of Lead Plaintiff’s representatives, Lead Plaintiff’s relevant investment manager, and Lead Plaintiff’s economic expert; and (vii) engaged in extensive mediation efforts overseen by Robert Meyer, which included the preparation of mediation briefs, a full-day mediation session, and extensive subsequent negotiations. 2 Case 3:17-cv-06436-DEA Document 101 Filed 08/25/20 Page 4 of 41 PageID: 2682 5. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Due to their efforts, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel are well-informed about the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses in the Action. As discussed in detail below, the Settlement was achieved in the face of vigorous opposition by Defendants who would have, had the Settlement not been reached, continued to raise numerous challenging defenses. For example, Defendants would have continued to raise serious arguments concerning scienter and the falsity of the alleged misstatements. Additionally, Defendants would likely argue that damages are not significant given that the Court dramatically reduced the scope of the case and the length of the class period. Issues relating to damages would likely have come down to an inherently unpredictable and hotly disputed “battle of the experts,” with Defendants’ experts focusing on, among other things, that there were no statistically significant price movements in Dr. Reddy’s ADS on the dates of certain of the remaining alleged misstatements, and that the ADS price declines on the alleged corrective disclosures were explained by non-fraud related factors. In the absence of a settlement, there was a very real risk that the class could have recovered nothing or an amount significantly less than the negotiated Settlement. 6. With respect to the proposed Plan of Allocation for the Settlement proceeds governing the calculation of claims, as discussed below, the proposed plan was developed with the assistance of Lead Plaintiff’s damages expert, and provides for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members who submit Claim Forms that are approved for payment on a pro rata basis based on their losses attributable to the alleged fraud. 7. With respect to the Fee and Expense Application, as discussed in Lead Counsel’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Payment of 3 Case 3:17-cv-06436-DEA Document 101 Filed 08/25/20 Page 5 of 41 PageID: 2683 Litigation Expenses (“Fee Brief”), the requested fee of 25% of the Settlement Amount would be fair both to the Settlement Class and to Lead Counsel, and warrants the Court’s approval. This fee request is within the range of fee percentages frequently awarded in this type of contingent litigation and, under the facts of this case, is justified in light of the substantial benefits that Lead Counsel has conferred on the Settlement Class, the risks they undertook, the quality of their representation, the nature and extent of the legal services, and the fact that Lead Counsel pursued the case at their financial risk. Lead Counsel also seek $314,531.64 in litigation expenses, plus a request of $27,500 to reimburse Lead Plaintiff for its reasonable costs and expenses, including lost wages, pursuant to the PSLRA. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Summary of Claims 8. As set forth in the Complaint, Dr. Reddy’s is an Indian pharmaceutical manufacturing company that produces drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients (“APIs”) and has operations throughout the world, including the United States. Complaint at ¶¶ 50, 65, 71. Dr. Reddy’s ADS securities have traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker “RDY” since 2001. Id. at ¶ 50. The Action arises out of Defendants’ allegedly false and misleading representations concerning Dr. Reddy’s compliance with mandatory manufacturing quality standards known as current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”), which are enforced by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Id. at ¶¶ 1, 2. The Complaint alleges that starting in November 2014, FDA inspectors cited Dr. Reddy’s for potential violations of cGMP at three of the Company’s Indian manufacturing facilities. Id. at ¶¶ 120, 140, 144. One year later, on November 5, 2015, the FDA issued Dr. Reddy’s a Warning Letter 4 Case 3:17-cv-06436-DEA Document 101 Filed 08/25/20 Page 6 of 41 PageID: 2684 for failing to adequately address the potential violations and ordered the Company to conduct an investigation and remediation of its facilities to correct the problems. Id. at ¶¶ 164, 194-195. When the FDA returned to inspect Defendants’ facilities in March and September of 2017, it once again found potential violations of cGMP despite the Company’s remediation efforts, which the Complaint alleges were inadequate. Id. at ¶¶ 210-211. 9. The Complaint sets forth 22 alleged misstatements during the class period concerning: (i) the scope and severity of the FDA’s observations of potential violation of cGMP, (ii) Dr. Reddy’s compliance with cGMP and other industry standards, (iii) Dr. Reddy’s remediation efforts to address the FDA’s observations, and (iv) the extent to which Dr. Reddy’s remediation efforts slowed down the Company’s manufacturing capabilities. Id. at ¶¶ 214-289. The Complaint further alleges that investors were injured when the market learned through a series of disclosures that the FDA and other regulators uncovered additional potential violations of cGMP at Dr. Reddy’s facilities, and that Dr. Reddy’s had produced fewer APIs and received less revenue as a result of the remediation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LEONARD SOKOLOW, Individually and on Behalf of All O
    Case: 1:18-cv-01039 Document #: 209 Filed: 11/13/19 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:3098 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LEONARD SOKOLOW, Individually and on ) Case No. 1:18-cv-01039 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ) ) Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) LJM FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LTD., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) DECLARATION OF JAMES W. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF (I) LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PARTIAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND (II) LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES I, JAMES W. JOHNSON, declare as follows pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746: 1. I am a partner of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP (“Labaton Sucharow”). Labaton Sucharow and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) serve as Court-appointed Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Justin and Jenny Kaufman, Joseph N. Wilson, Dr. Larry and Marilyn Cohen, Tradition Capital Management LLC (“Tradition”), and SRS Capital Advisors, Inc. (“SRS”) (collectively, “Lead Plaintiffs”), and the proposed Settlement Class in the Action.1 I have been actively involved in prosecuting and resolving the Action, am 1 All capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined shall have the meanings provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Partial Settlement, dated as of August 19, 2019 (ECF No. 192) (the “Stipulation”), which was entered into by and among (a) Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class; and (b) defendants Two Roads Shared Trust (the “Trust”), Northern Lights Distributors, LLC (“NLD”), NorthStar Financial Services Group, LLC (“NorthStar”), and Mark D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Telecom Meltdown for a Listing of Recent Titles in the Artech House Telecommunications Library, Turn to the Back of This Book
    The Great Telecom Meltdown For a listing of recent titles in the Artech House Telecommunications Library, turn to the back of this book. The Great Telecom Meltdown Fred R. Goldstein a r techhouse. com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the U.S. Library of Congress. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Goldstein, Fred R. The great telecom meltdown.—(Artech House telecommunications Library) 1. Telecommunication—History 2. Telecommunciation—Technological innovations— History 3. Telecommunication—Finance—History I. Title 384’.09 ISBN 1-58053-939-4 Cover design by Leslie Genser © 2005 ARTECH HOUSE, INC. 685 Canton Street Norwood, MA 02062 All rights reserved. Printed and bound in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. All terms mentioned in this book that are known to be trademarks or service marks have been appropriately capitalized. Artech House cannot attest to the accuracy of this information. Use of a term in this book should not be regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark or service mark. International Standard Book Number: 1-58053-939-4 10987654321 Contents ix Hybrid Fiber-Coax (HFC) Gave Cable Providers an Advantage on “Triple Play” 122 RBOCs Took the Threat Seriously 123 Hybrid Fiber-Coax Is Developed 123 Cable Modems
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of South Carolina (Columbia Division)
    3:17-cv-02616-MBS Date Filed 04/23/20 Entry Number 229 Page 1 of 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA (COLUMBIA DIVISION) In re SCANA Corporation Securities Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-2616-MBS Litigation JOINT DECLARATION OF JOHN C. BROWNE AND JAMES W. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF (I) LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; AND (II) LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES 3:17-cv-02616-MBS Date Filed 04/23/20 Entry Number 229 Page 2 of 57 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION.............................................................................. iii I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION .................................................................................. 6 A. Factual Background of the Claims .......................................................................... 6 B. Filing of the Initial Complaint and Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel .......................................................................................................... 8 C. Lead Counsel’s Investigation and the Consolidated Class Action Complaint ................................................................................................................ 9 D. Continued Informal Discovery Following Filing of Complaint ........................... 11 E. Defendants’ Motions to
    [Show full text]
  • America's Top Technology Companies
    NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY Title: America's Top Technology Companies. By: Willis, Clint, Forbes ASAP, 10789901, 4/5/1999 ASAP, Vol. 163, Issue 7 Database: Business Source Premier America's Top Technology Companies Listen American Accent COMPILING THIS LIST OF THE MOST dynamic technology companies is a lot like naming the world's hottest 100 mountaineers. You can be sure that by next year (or maybe next month) many "of your picks will have tumbled off the roster into the cold wastes of oblivion. The second annual Forbes ASAP "Dynamic 100" includes 52 repeaters. So what happened to the others, and where did the new guys come from? The two-word answer: dot.com. The revolution, it seems, will be Webcast: Dynamic companies are supposed to cope with change. That's one of the-six factors we used .to make our selections. The painful truth is that dynamism itself is subject to change: Shifts in a company's operations, its competition, or its markets can quickly transform today's 'dynamic company into next year's shoulda-been. With two-year development cycles and nine-month product life spans; everyone's got to move very quickly," says venture capitalist Kevin Compton of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. "It you're not building your technology, you're at risk." And even if you do, you might still be in trouble: "Asian demand just dried up, and no one saw it co coming," says Wasatch Advisors analyst Ajay Krishnan. Result: Semitool (#8 semiconductor company last year) fell off the list after the capital equipment sector slowed down and its growth rate slumped.
    [Show full text]
  • International Journal of Entrepreneurship
    Volume 6 ISSN 1099-9264 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP An official Journal of the Academy of Entrepreneurship ®, Inc. Reagan McLaurin Editor University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Academy Information is published on the Allied Academies web page www.alliedacademies.org The Academy of Entrepreneurship®, Inc. is a non-profit corporation chartered under the laws of North Carolina in the United States. The Academy is an association of scholars and practitioners whose purpose is to advance the knowledge, understanding, and teaching of entrepreneurship throughout the world. W hitney Press, Inc. Printed by Whitney Press, Inc. PO Box 1064, Cullowhee, NC 28723 www.whitneypress.com Authors retain copyright for their manuscripts and provide the Academy with a publication permission agreement. Neither the Academy of Entrepreneurship nor the Allied Academies is responsible for the content of the individual manuscripts. Any omissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the individual authors. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of manuscripts for publication from among those submitted for consideration. The Editors accept final manuscripts in digital form and the Publishers make adjustments solely for the purposes of pagination and organization. The Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal is owned by the Academy of Entrepreneurship®, Inc., and published by the Allied Academies, Inc., PO Box 2689, 145 Travis Road, Cullowhee, NC 28723, USA, (828) 293-9151, FAX (828) 293-9407. Those interested in subscribing to the Journal,
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Declaration of Jon Gardner and Daniel Pfefferbaum With
    Case 4:12-cv-04677-YGR Document 127 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 34 1 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 2 CHRISTOPHER P. SEEFER (201197) DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM (248631) 3 Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 4 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415/288-4545 5 415/288-4534 (fax) [email protected] 6 [email protected] 7 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP JONATHAN GARDNER 8 MICHAEL P. CANTY ROGER W. YAMADA 9 140 Broadway New York, New York 10005 10 Telephone: 212/907-0700 212/818-0477 (fax) 11 [email protected] [email protected] 12 [email protected] 13 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 In re UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. 12-cv-04677-YGR SECURITIES LITIGATION ) 17 ) CLASS ACTION ) 18 ) JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN This Document Relates To: ) GARDNER AND DANIEL J. 19 ) PFEFFERBAUM IN SUPPORT OF LEAD ALL ACTIONS. ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL 20 ) APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION ) SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF 21 ALLOCATION AND LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF 22 ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES 23 24 25 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO. 12-CV-04677-YGR JOINT DECLARATION OF JONATHAN GARDNER AND DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM Case 4:12-cv-04677-YGR Document 127 Filed 11/13/17 Page 2 of 34 1 We, JONATHAN GARDNER and DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM, declare as follows 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746: 3 1. Jonathan Gardner is a partner of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP 4 (“Labaton Sucharow”) and Daniel J.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Tools Managers Can Use to Get Long-Term Committed Shareholders
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2020 CULTIVATING QUALITY: TEN TOOLS MANAGERS CAN USE TO GET LONG-TERM COMMITTED SHAREHOLDERS Lawrence A. Cunningham George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ohio State U. Business Law Journal (2020). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CULTIVATING QUALITY: TEN TOOLS MANAGERS CAN USE TO GET LONG-TERM COMMITTED SHAREHOLDERS Lawrence A. Cunningham George Washington University Center for Law, Economics & Finance ABSTRACT Considerable effort goes into forging tools a corporation can use to shape its shareholder base. Much effort is geared toward promoting long investor time horizons, presumed to be a valuable but rare appetite among many shareholders. Less attention has been focused on promoting greater commitment, though attracting shareholders willing to stake large percentages of their portfolio in a given company’s stock may prove way more valuable than having numerous large index funds on the shareholder list. In three ways, this article adds to the toolkit on shareholder cultivation. First, this article stresses that a shareholder’s relative portfolio concentration in a particular company’s stock is as important as average holding periods. Such an orientation is unusual in corporate life. But today’s world is dominated by index fund investors whose portfolio diversification limits their ability to act as informed shareholders.
    [Show full text]