Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-06-04864/USCOURTS-ca3-06-04864-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-4864

 

IN RE: *SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 SECURITIES LITIGATION

 A.F.I.K. Holding SPRL, individually

 and as class representative,

 Appellant

 *(Amended in accordance with the Clerk's Order dated 03/26/07)

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(D.C. Civil No. 02-cv-06048)

District Judge: The Honorable Harold A. Ackerman

 

Argued: June 24, 2008

 

Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: July 2, 2008)

 

Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq. (Argued)

Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg

1430 Broadway, Suite 1603

New York, NY 10018

-ANDCase: 06-4864 Document: 00311950221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2008
2

Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. 

Robert M. Zabb, Esq.

Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg

1801 Avenue of the Stars

Suite 311

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Counsel for Appellant

Irwin H. Warren, Esq. (Argued)

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

767 Fifth Avenue, 27 Floor th

New York, NY 10153

-ANDRobert B. Kaplan, Esq.

Greenberg Taurig

200 Park Avenue

P.O. Box 677

Florham Park, NJ 07932

Counsel for Appellees

 

OPINION

 

BARRY, Circuit Judge

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of its consolidated class action securities fraud

complaint – the Second Amended Complaint – which charged Bio-Technology General

Corp. (now Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and three of its senior officers with making

false and misleading statements about the corporation’s financial performance in 1999,

2000, and 2001. The District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint finding,

Case: 06-4864 Document: 00311950221 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2008
 In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Sec. Litig., 380 F.Supp.2d 574 (D.N.J. 2005). 1

 In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Sec. Litig., No. Civ. A. 02-6048, 2006 WL 2

3068553 (D.N.J. Oct. 26, 2006). 

3

as it had with reference to the initial consolidated class action complaint, that scienter had

not been adequately pled. Because plaintiff had already had “two large bites at the apple”

and because further amendment would be futile, the dismissal was with prejudice. The

predominant issue before us is whether the District Court erred in finding that the Second

Amended Complaint failed to adequately plead scienter. Our review is plenary. Winer

Family Trust v. Queen, 503 F.3d 319, 325 (3d Cir. 2007). 

We have reviewed the extensive record in this case; indeed, the complaints alone

cover 120 and 162 pages, respectively. We have also reviewed the thorough, thoughtful

and, in a word, superb opinions of the District Court, the first opinion comprehensively

analyzing the numerous allegations of the initial consolidated class action complaint in

light of the applicable law and laying out a road map for plaintiff to follow, and the 1

second opinion explaining, after a close review of the Second Amended Complaint, the

deficiencies that remained. 

2

This is a case in which we need do no more than recognize the excellence of the

District Court’s opinions; indeed, it would make little or no sense to even attempt to

match the quality of that work. And so, substantially for the reasons set forth by the

Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, we will affirm. 

Case: 06-4864 Document: 00311950221 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/02/2008