Nathaniel C. Simon

Current Cases

• Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD")

  CASE CAPTION	Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al.
  COURT	United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
  CASE NUMBER	2:20-cv-02155-SRC-CLW
  JUDGE	Honorable Stanley R. Chesler and Honorable Cathy L. Waldor
  PLAINTIFF	Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S (“Industriens”)
  DEFENDANTS	Becton, Dickinson and Company, Vincent A. Forlenza, Thomas E. Polen, and Christopher R. Reidy
  CLASS PERIOD	November 5, 2019 through February 5, 2020, inclusive

  This securities fraud class action arises out of Becton’s alleged misrepresentations concerning its ability to market one of its key products—the Alaris infusion pump system (“Alaris”)—in 2020.
  
  For years, Alaris has been an important revenue driver for Becton, accounting for hundreds of millions of dollars in annual sales, and the cornerstone product of its main Becton Medical segment. Beginning in November 2019, Defendants stopped shipping Alaris, explaining to investors that the pause related to mere software “upgrades,” would quickly resolve, and would simply push Alaris sales into the final three quarters of Becton’s fiscal 2020, allowing for strong Company-wide 2020 earnings growth. In reality, however, the problems with Alaris were much more severe than Defendants let on, as the product had been beset with undisclosed defects, safety and compliance issues, and regulatory failures for months, and in some cases, years, prior to late 2019. The Alaris shipping hold was in fact precipitated by actions of the Food and Drug Administration, and highly likely to persist indefinitely, hurting Becton revenues. When Defendants revealed the full sweep of these issues in February 2020, and the fact that Alaris would be pulled from the market —causing earnings guidance for 2020 to be slashed—Becton’s stock price dropped over $33.00 in a single day of trading.
  
  Industriens filed a third amended complaint in October 2021 on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Becton and then-executives Forlenza, Polen and Reidy, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements about Alaris and Company guidance. As alleged, Defendants downplayed and outright misrepresented the severe safety and regulatory problems Becton knew troubled the Alaris product line, and assured investors that Becton was on track to meet its earnings guidance for 2020, anchored by Alaris revenues, through a series of false or misleading statements. Meanwhile, Forlenza and Polen enriched themselves by together selling over $58 million worth of their personally-held shares of Becton stock between November 2019 and February 2020. The February 2020 revelation of the truth about the Alaris issues led directly to the sharp decline in Becton’s stock price noted above, causing significant losses and injury to investors.
  
  On August 11, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Stanley R. Chesler issued an opinion denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. The opinion held that Industriens adequately alleged Polen and Becton issued false and misleading statements regarding: (i) the impetus for Becton to halt shipping of Alaris, (ii) the nature and severity of the regulatory risks facing Alaris, (iii) the impact a freeze on Alaris sales would have on the feasibility of meeting the company-wide sales guidance for the 2020 fiscal year.  

  On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend the Complaint.  That motion is fully briefed and awaiting a decision from the court. On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff moved for class certification. Briefing on that motion is set to conclude in June 2023.

  Read Third Amended Class Action Complaint Here

• Celgene Corp, Inc.

  CASE CAPTION	In re Celgene Corporation Securities Litigation
  COURT	United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
  CASE NUMBER	2:18-cv-04772-JMV-JBC
  JUDGE	Honorable John Michael Vazquez and Honorable James B. Clark, III
  PLAINTIFF	AMF Pensionsförsäkring AB (“AMF”)
  DEFENDANTS	Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”), Scott A. Smith, Terrie Curran, and Philippe Martin
  CLASS PERIOD	April 27, 2017 through April 27, 2018, inclusive

  This securities fraud case involves Celgene’s misrepresentations and omissions about two billion dollar drugs, Otezla and Ozanimod, that Celgene touted as products that would make up for the anticipated revenue drop following the patent expiration of Celgene’s most profitable drug, Revlimid.

  Celgene launched Otezla, a drug treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, in 2014. Celgene primed the market that Otezla sales were poised to sky-rocket, representing that Otezla net product sales would reach $1.5 billion to $2 billion by 2017. Throughout 2015 and 2016, Defendants represented that Celgene was on-track to meet the 2017 sales projection. As early as mid-2016, however, Defendants received explicit internal warnings that the 2017 projection was unattainable, but continued to reaffirm the 2017 target to investors. By October 2017, however, Celgene announced that the Company had slashed the 2017 guidance by more than $250 million and lowered the 2020 Inflammatory & Immunology (“I&I”) guidance by over $1 billion. Celgene’s stock price plummeted on the news.

  Ozanimod, a drug treating multiple sclerosis, is another product in Celgene’s I&I pipeline, and was initially developed by a different company, Receptos. In July 2015, Celgene purchased Receptos for $7.2 billion and projected annual Ozanimod sales of up to $6 billion despite the fact that Ozanimod was not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

  Celgene told investors that it would file a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for Ozanimod with the FDA in 2017. Unbeknownst to investors, however, Celgene discovered a metabolite named CC112273 (the “Metabolite”) through Phase I testing that Celgene started in October 2016, which triggered the need for extensive testing that was required before the FDA would approve the drug. Despite the need for this additional Metabolite testing that would extend beyond 2017, Defendants continued to represent that Celgene was on track to submit the NDA before the end of 2017 and concealed all information about the Metabolite.  In December 2017, without obtaining the required Metabolite study results, Celgene submitted the Ozanimod NDA to the FDA. Two months later, the FDA rejected the NDA by issuing a rare “refuse to file,” indicating that the FDA “identifie[d] clear and obvious deficiencies” in the NDA.  When the relevant truth was revealed concerning Ozanimod, Celgene’s stock price fell precipitously, damaging investors.   

  On February 27, 2019, AMF filed a 207-page Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint against Celgene and its executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. On December 19, 2019, U.S. District Judge John Michael Vasquez issued a 49-page opinion sustaining AMF’s claims as to (1) Celgene’s and Curran’s misstatements regarding Otezla being on track to meet Celgene’s 2017 sales projections, and (2) Celgene’s, Martin’s, and Smith’s misstatements about the state of Ozanimod’s testing and prospects for regulatory approval.

  On November 29, 2020, Judge Vasquez certified a class of “All persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Celgene Corp. between April 27, 2017 through and April 27, 2018, and were damaged thereby” and appointed Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check as Class Counsel.

  On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff moved to amend the Second Amended Complaint and file the Third Amended Complaint, which alleged a new statement regarding Otezla, and added new allegations based on evidence obtained in discovery regarding Ozanimod. On February 24, 2022, Magistrate Judge James B. Clark granted the motion to amend, which Defendants appealed. 

  Fact and expert discovery is completed.  The parties are currently engaged in briefing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

  Read Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint Here

  Read Opinion Granting and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss Here

  Read Opinion Granting Class Certification Here

  Click Here to Read the Class Notice

• First Solar, Inc.

  CASE CAPTION	Pontiac, City of General Employees Retirement System v. First Solar Incorporated, et al.
  COURT	United States District Court for the District of Arizona
  CASE NUMBER	2:22-cv-00036-MTL
  JUDGE	Honorable Michael T. Liburdi
  PLAINTIFF	Palm Harbor Special Fire Control & Rescue District Firefighters’ Pension Plan (“Palm Harbor”) and Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters’ Pension Fund (“Pennsylvania Carpenters”)
  DEFENDANTS	First Solar, Inc. (“First Solar” or the “Company”), Mark Widmar, Alexander R. Bradley, and Georges Antoun
  CLASS PERIOD	February 22, 2019 through February 20, 2020, inclusive

  This securities fraud class action arises out of First Solar’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Series 6 solar power modules and its Project Development division. In late 2017, First Solar announced that it was transitioning to the Series 6 solar module as its flagship product and phasing out the Company’s existing Series 4 module. In connection with this transition, Defendants touted the significantly higher output (measured in watts per module) and lower cost (measured in cost per watt) of the Series 6 compared to the Series 4. During the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly assured investors that the Series 6 was meeting the necessary milestones to achieve the targeted watts per module and cost per watt figures. Unbeknownst to the market, however, the Series 6 was plagued by manufacturing and performance defects that were negatively impacting both metrics. At the same time that they were concealing these issues with the Series 6, Defendants also failed to disclose that First Solar’s Project Development division had lost significant market share, that its project pipeline was rapidly dwindling, and that the Company was looking to divest this business. The truth concerning the state of affairs within the Company was eventually revealed to the public through disclosures on October 24, 2019, January 15, 2020 and February 20, 2020. Following these revelations, First Solar’s stock price fell precipitously.

  On June 23, 2022, Palm Harbor and Pennsylvania Carpenters filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that First Solar and certain of its current executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements and concealing material facts about the manufacturing and performance issues with the Company’s Series 6 modules and its struggling Project Development division. On August 22, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted with leave to amend on January 11, 2023. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on February 10, 2023. Briefing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on February 24, 2023, is pending before the Court.

  Read Amended Class Action Complaint Here

• Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

  CASE CAPTION	Sjunde AP-Fonden v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al.
  COURT	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
  CASE NUMBER	1:18-cv-12084-VSB
  JUDGE	Honorable Vernon S. Broderick
  PLAINTIFF	Sjunde AP-Fonden (“AP7”)
  DEFENDANTS	The Goldman Sachs Group (“Goldman Sachs” or the “Company”), Lloyd C. Blankfein, Gary D. Cohn, and Harvey M. Schwartz
  CLASS PERIOD	February 28, 2014 to December 20, 2018, inclusive

  This securities fraud class action case arises out of Goldman Sachs’ role in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”) money laundering scandal, one of the largest financial frauds in recent memory.

  In 2012 and 2013, Goldman served as the underwriter for 1MDB, the Malaysia state investment fund masterminded by financier Jho Low, in connection with three state-guaranteed bond offerings that raised over $6.5 billion. Goldman netted $600 million in fees for the three bond offerings—over 100 times the customary fee for comparable deals.

  In concert with Goldman, Low and other conspirators including government officials from Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates ran an expansive bribery ring, siphoning $4.5 billion from the bond deals that Goldman peddled as investments for Malaysian state energy projects. In actuality, the deals were shell transactions used to facilitate the historic money laundering scheme. Nearly $700 million of the diverted funds ended up in the private bank account of Najib Razak, Malaysia’s now-disgraced prime minister who was convicted for abuse of power in 2020. Other funds were funneled to Low and his associates and were used to buy luxury real estate in New York and Paris, super yachts, and even help finance the 2013 film “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

  AP7 filed a 200-page complaint in October 2019 on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Goldman and its former executives, including former CEO Lloyd Blankfein and former President Gary Cohn, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements about Goldman’s role in the 1MDB fraud. As alleged, when media reports began to surface about the collapse of 1MDB, Goldman denied any involvement in the criminal scheme. Simultaneously, Goldman misrepresented its risk controls and continued to falsely tout the robustness of its compliance measures. Following a series of revelations about investigations into allegations of money laundering and corruption at 1MDB, Goldman’s stock price fell precipitously, causing significant losses and damages to the Company’s investors.

  In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Goldman’s Malaysia subsidiary had pled guilty to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) which criminalizes the payment of bribes to foreign officials, and that Goldman had agreed to pay $2.9 billion pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement. This amount includes the largest ever penalty under the FCPA.

  On June 28, 2021, The Honorable Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sustained Plaintiff's complaint in a 44-page published opinion.  Plaintiff moved for class certification in November 2021.  That motion is fully briefed and pending before the Court.  Fact discovery is ongoing.  On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend the Complaint.  Briefing on that motion is set conclude in February 2023.

  Read Second Amended Class Action Complaint Here

  Read Opinion and Order Granting and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss Here 

  Read Motion for Class Certification Here

• Mylan N.V.

  CASE CAPTION	In re Mylan N.V. Securities Litigation
  COURT	United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
  CASE NUMBER	2:20-cv-00955-NR
  JUDGE	Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan
  PLAINTIFF	Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi (“MPERS”)
  DEFENDANTS	Mylan N.V. (“Mylan” or the “Company”), Heather Bresch, Rajiv Malik, Anthony Mauro, and Kenneth Parks
  CLASS PERIOD	February 16, 2016 through May 7, 2019, inclusive

  This securities fraud class action stems from Defendants’ promotion of Mylan’s unique ability to manufacture quality drugs across a broad product line while concealing that the Company was experiencing widespread product quality issues at its manufacturing facilities, including at its flagship manufacturing plant in Morgantown, West Virginia.

  Mylan is one of the largest drug manufacturers in the world, selling several thousand different drug products.  During the Class Period, Mylan developed and manufactured many of these products at its Morgantown plant.  The Morgantown plant, as with all drug manufacturing facilities, received inspections by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)  to ensure that its quality and safety testing was complete, consistent, accurate, and free from manipulation.  Mylan publicly acknowledged that complying with FDA regulations was critical to its business and profitability. 

  Yet, despite this acknowledgement, Mylan encountered significant regulatory issues at its manufacturing plants. These issues were largely unknown to the investing public.  In 2016, a surprise FDA inspection of Morgantown substantiated a former Mylan employee’s account that, under the direct leadership of President Rajiv Malik, Mylan employees had been manipulating drug test results to achieve passing quality control results, and deliberately corrupting testing data.  Following this investigation, Malik attended meetings with the FDA where officials told him they were “stunned” by Mylan’s “egregious” violations.   Just two years later, the FDA conducted another surprise investigation into the Morgantown facility. This investigation culminated in the FDA detailing thirteen significant deficiencies in Mylan’s operations and found that, among other violations, Mylan’s attempts to remedy its previous deficiencies identified during the FDA’s 2016 inspection were “inadequate,” and that Mylan exhibited poor quality control oversight, major lapses in equipment cleaning, and ineffective controls. 

  MPERS filed a 137-page complaint in November 2020 on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Mylan and its former executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.  As alleged, during the Class Period,  Mylan’s CEO Heather Bresch and President Malik stressed Mylan’s ability to produce a significant volume of drugs across product lines while “meeting or exceeding” “stringent” quality standards and that this ability differentiated Mylan from competitors. Unbeknownst to investors, however, its manufacturing facilities, including at its flagship Morgantown facility, were rife with systemic, egregious, and long-standing deficiencies.  As multiple whistleblowers, Mylan employees, and the FDA told Mylan during the Class Period, the company’s quality failures were a by-product of management’s exclusive focus on production volume so as to increase Mylan’s bottom line.  These failures exposed Mylan to serious regulatory penalties, costly production disruptions, and expensive remediation. 

  At the end of the Class Period, Mylan finally admitted that its focus on generating massive volumes of drugs was unsustainable, and it had to halt production at Morgantown and dramatically reduce Mylan’s generics portfolio going forward. When the relevant truth was finally revealed to investors, Mylan’s stock price declined precipitously, materially damaging investors.      

  Following the completion of briefing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court heard an oral argument on for March 14, 2023. That motion is now pending before the Court.

  Read Consolidated Class Action Complaint Here

Landmark Results

• Allergan Generic Drug Pricing

  Kessler Topaz represented Lead Plaintiff Sjunde-AP Fonden, one of Sweden’s largest pension funds, in this long-running securities fraud class action before The Honorable Katharine S. Hayden of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The $130 million recovery is the first settlement of a federal securities case arising out of the industrywide generic drug price-fixing scandal which first came to light when Congress launched an investigation into the historic increases in generic drug prices. The price-fixing conspiracy, led by Allergan and several other drug makers, is believed to be the largest domestic pharmaceutical cartel in U.S. history. Shareholders alleged that notwithstanding Allergan’s prominent role in this illicit scheme, the company repeatedly misrepresented to investors that it was not engaged in anticompetitive conduct—even as Allergan became ensnared in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and 46 state attorneys general.

  For four years, a team of Kessler Topaz litigators prosecuted these claims from the initial investigation and drafting of the complaint through full fact discovery and class certification proceedings. On August 6, 2019, Judge Hayden issued a 31-page opinion denying defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, sustaining investors’ claims in full, and firmly establishing a shareholder-plaintiff’s ability to pursue securities fraud claims based on the concealment of an underlying antitrust conspiracy. The parties’ settlement was approved by the Court on November 22, 2021, marking a historic recovery for investors and sending a strong message to drug makers engaged in anticompetitive conduct.

• New Jersey Federal Court Approves $130 Million Settlement for Investors in Allergan Generic Drug Price-Fixing Securities Litigation

  November 22, 2021