Competition Act claim alleges that Canadians are being overcharged for prescription drugs

Morganti Legal and McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP, are representing Canadian pharmacies and consumers that allege that Pfizer Canada Inc abused the Canadian patent system in order to obtain exclusive rights in Canada to sell the pharmaceutical drug pregabalin sold under the trade name Lyrica. Pfizer’s activities resulted in it enjoying 100% of the Canadian market for pregabalin, e.g., without competition from lower priced generics.

Lyrica is indicated for use in the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, spinal cord injury, and the pain associated with fibromyalgia.

The claims asserted against Pfizer Canada include interference with economic interest and unjust enrichment seeking the return of the overcharges plus interest. If you purchased Lyrica between April 1, 2011 and February 4, 2013, please contact us for further information at info@morgantilegal.com or toll-free at (888) 226-0845.

Morganti Legal is a law firm that investigates, litigates, and resolves economic and financial disputes in Canada and the United States. Andrew Morganti has successfully represented consumers seeking the return of overcharges involving Synthroid (MDL No. 1182), Lorazepam and Clorazepate (MDL No. 1290), Cardizem CD (MDL No. 1278), Coumadin (MDL No. 1232), and Relafen (01-cv-1222).

Canadian Hedge Fund Researcher Sues Silvercorp Over False Imprisonment in China

A researcher for a Canadian hedge fund manager who claimed that ore estimates at a Chinese Mine owned by Silvercorp Metals were overstated and misrepresented has filed a lawsuit accusing the mining company of conspiring with Chinese authorities to have him arrested and detained.

Kun Huang was stopped at the Bejing airport by Chinese authorities in December of 2011, strip searched, detained until he received a single-day, closed-door trial, and subsequently imprisoned until July 17 of 2014. Mr. Huang spent parts of his two-and-a-half year sentence locked-up in a 320 square foot cell with more than 30 people, where he lost 40lbs. Due to a lack of space in the cell, he was forced to sleep on the floor with his head only feet away from a hole in the ground used as a toilet.

Now back in Canada, on August 19, 2014 Mr. Huang filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia claiming that Silvercorp was behind his detention as punishment for his research of the company, which caused a sharp drop in the Company’s share price when Mr. Huang’s team’s revelations were made public. In his lawsuit, Mr. Huang asserts that the Chinese police acted as Silvercorp’s agents with the company giving them financial support “to falsely imprison and then later knowingly bring baseless charges against Mr. Huang.”

According to the Globe and Mail, a 2012 investigation undertaken by the newspaper revealed evidence that “a Silvercorp subsidiary paid for hotels rooms used by police who investigated Mr. Huang, and that those investigators at one point used a private car owned by that subsidiary. A Silvercorp regulatory filing also contained information that appeared to come from Mr. Huang’s computer, which was in the possession of the police.”

Mr. Huang is pursuing his action in Canada because he believes that the Canadian legal system is his only chance at vindication, claiming that for him “[t]here is no justice in China”.

For further information, please see today’s article in the Globe and Mail: Canadian sues Silvercorp Metals over ‘false imprisonment’ in China.

Morganti Legal, P.C.: Canadian Shareholder Files A Lawsuit Against Allied Nevada Gold Corporation

TORONTO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Morganti Legal, P.C., announces that investors have filed a shareholder lawsuit against Allied Nevada Gold Corporation (TSX: “AVN”) for publishing press release containing alleged Misrepresentations and failing to disclose Material Facts about its business operations concerning its Lewis Leach Pad between January 18, 2013 and August 5, 2013.

The investors’ mining expert has been examining Allied Nevada Gold’s disclosures since the Company published its updated 43-101 pre-feasibility mine production report for the Hycroft gold mine. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants breached s. 75, and if leave is granted, s. 138.3(1) and s. 138.3(4) of the Ontario Securities Act.

Investors who purchased Allied Nevada Gold’s securities between January 18, 2013 and August 5, 2013, are encouraged to stay informed. You may contact us toll-free at (888) 226-0845 or by email at info@morgantilegal.com for further information, a copy of the lawsuit and the expert report supporting the allegations that Allied Nevada Gold’s press releases and prospectus contained discrepancies or misleading statements of Material Fact when compared to its subsequent disclosures filed on SEDAR.

Morganti Legal, P.C. is a law firm that investigates, litigates and resolves economic and financial disputes.

Shareholders allege that Detour Gold Corporation made Misrepresentations

Morganti Legal, P.C., (May 12, 2014) announces that investors have filed a shareholder lawsuit against Detour Gold Corporation (“Detour Gold” or the “Company”) (TSX: “DGC”) for publishing press releases containing alleged misrepresentations and failing to disclose Material Facts about its business operations between April 9, 2013 and November 7, 2013.

The investors’ mining experts have been examining Detour Gold’s disclosures since the Company published its 2014 updated mine production plan for the Detour Lake gold mine. The shareholder lawsuit was filed on May 12, 2014. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants breached s. 75, s. 138.3(1) and s. 138.3(4) of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 9, 2013, Detour Gold announced that it was reducing its 2013 production guidance to 350,000 ounces from its previous target of up to 400,000 ounces with a cash cost of $800 to $900 per ounce. Detour Gold also represented that it would be able to ramp-up its mill to 55,000 TPD by the end of its second quarter. On November 7, 2013, Detour Gold published a Material Change report announcing that it would reduce its production guidance down to 240,000 – 260,000 ounces, that its mill operations of achieving 55,000 TPD were 12-months behind schedule among other operational disappointments, and its cash costs would average $1,100/oz. Following this announcement, shares of Detour Gold materially dropped from $8.12 to $4.43 within ten-days, and the Company’s chief operating officer resigned.

Investors who purchased Detour Gold’s securities between April 9, 2013 and November 6, 2013, and sold all or some of those securities prior to December 23, 2013, are encouraged to stay informed. You may contact us toll-free at (888) 226-0845 or by email at info@morgantilegal.com to request a copy of the lawsuit and the expert report supporting the allegations that Detour Gold’s press releases and prospectus contained discrepancies or misleading statements of Material Fact when compared to its subsequent disclosures filed on SEDAR.

Morganti Legal, P.C. is a law firm that investigates, litigates and resolves economic and financial disputes.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
Morganti Legal, P.C.
Andrew Morganti
888-226-0845
Managing Partner
amorganti@morgantilegal.com

Andrew Morganti Lectures at the University of Michigan School of Law

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Cy Moscow, partner of leading Detroit-based law firm Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP, and adjunct professor at University of Michigan School of Law, has invited Andrew Morganti to lecture to third-year students in his advanced securities regulations course on the topic of shareholders’ rights litigation from the perspective of the buy-side institutional investor plaintiff.  Mr. Morganti will address the individual and class actions concerning the BP, plc Securities Litigation (Ontario, Texas, and England), third-party funding, and how corporate wrongdoing results in shareholder litigation.

The Law Office of Andrew Morganti, JD, LL.M. is serving as lead counsel on behalf of Canadian investors in the BP, plc Securities Litigation (ON Superior Court of Justice, 12-cv-00462836-CP).

Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Access to Justice by Clarifying the Limitations Period for Investors to Seek Damages Against Companies

Tuesday Feb 4, 2014

On February 3, 2014, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in three shareholder class proceedings claiming damages under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act(1) for misrepresentations alleged to have been made in respect of shares trading in the secondary market.

In Green v. CIBC(2) , a specially convened five-judge panel unanimously set aside its prior interpretation in Timminco(3) of section 28 of the Class Proceedings Act(4) and held instead that the three year limitations period for section 138 claims will be suspended once a plaintiff pleads a cause of action based on section 138.3 of the Securities Act and pleads the intent to seek leave. The court was concerned its previous ruling would make it unfeasible for investors to bring s. 138.3 claims as class proceedings, effectively leaving those wronged by corporate misrepresentations without an avenue of recourse. The effect of the Court’s decision was that all three class actions can proceed and none are time-barred.

Reasoning for Overturning the Timminco Decision The court acknowledged that the effect of its prior decision rendered the class proceeding unviable as a mechanism to bring s. 138.3 claims. It required that before leave was granted, each class member would have to start their own individual action and obtain leave individually to ensure that their personal claims were timely. This unnecessary obstacle was counterproductive to achieving the twin goals of section 138.3 of facilitating and enhancing access to justice for investors and deterring corporate misconduct and negligence. The court in arriving at its decision also recognized that oftentimes because of procedural steps initiated by the defendant or due to court availability, plaintiffs do not have control of whether they can meet the limitations period. For example, in one of the cases up for appeal (Silver v. Imax), the leave motion had been argued and was under reserve when the limitations period expired.

The Court was also influenced by the legislative reaction to the Timminco decision. The Ontario government in response to public concern about Timminco, has proposed updating the Securities Act to suspend the limitations period while leave is being sought. With Timminco being a relatively recent decision, the Court felt “there would be less confusion in correcting the error now rather than letting it take root”.

Certification of Common Law Misrepresentation Claims The Court held that because multiple plaintiffs would not be able to prove reliance as a common issue in a claim for negligent misrepresentation in either the primary or secondary markets, reliance issues should not be certified. The Court also reaffirmed that there is no authority to use the “fraud on the market theory” to supplant the inquiry into individual reliance, and that the theory has been rejected in Ontario.

However the five-judge panel held that issues other than reliance that are common to the negligent misrepresentation claims can be certified alongside the statutory claim. The trial judge may order individual trials to determine the issues of reliance and damages in accordance with s. 25 of the CPA. This approach is consistent with the Supreme Court’s views(5).

Impact of the Decision

The decision is an important step forward in upholding the aims of the Securities Act provision and enabling everyday investors to hold public companies accountable for misleading disclosures. It ensures that plaintiffs are no longer at the mercy of a leave process that can oftentimes be out of their control. The decision will help alleviate the “surprise and concern in the securities bar and community, that the Timminco decision interprets the legislation in an unintended way and limits the access to justice that the new remedy was intended to provide.” The suspension of the limitations period should not prolong the class action process however, because as noted by the Court, any issues regarding plaintiffs bringing motions for leave in a timely fashion can be resolved by the parties under the supervision of capable class action judges.

By Hadi Davarinia, MLS, JD Candidate (2015)

1- R.S.O. 1990, .c S.5, s. 138.3.

2- 2014 ONCA 90.

3- Sharma v. Timminco, 2012 ONCA 107.

4- S.O. 1992, c. 6.

5- Sharbern Holding Inc v Vancouver Airport Centre Ltd, 2011 SCC 23 at para 122 (CanLii).