CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rosemary M. Rivas (SBN 209147)

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: (415) 291-2420

Fax: (415) 484-1294

Email: rrivas@zlk.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Brian Clevlen

[Additional counsel appear on signature page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN CLEVLEN, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

PAUL F. TRUEX, CRAIG THOMPSON, MAY 

LIU and WILLIAM SHANAHAN

Case No. 3:17-cv-715

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL 

SECURITIES LAWS 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Brian Clevlen (“Plaintiff”), by his attorneys, except for his own acts, which are 

alleged on knowledge, alleges the following based upon the investigation of counsel, which 

included a review of United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings by 

Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Anthera” or the “Company”), as well as regulatory filings and 

reports, securities analyst reports and advisories by the Company, press releases and other 

public statements issued by the Company, and media reports about the Company. Plaintiff 

believes that additional evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a 

reasonable opportunity for discovery. 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 22
2

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased Anthera 

common stock between February 10, 2015 and December 27, 2016, inclusive (the “Class 

Period”), seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

Plaintiff’s claims are asserted against certain of Anthera’s executive officers and directors.

2. Anthera is biopharmaceutical company focused on advancing the development 

and commercialization of innovative medicines that benefit patients with unmet medical needs. 

The company has two product candidates in development: (1) Sollupura (also known as 

Liprotamase), a novel biotechnology-derived pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (“PERT”) 

for the potential treatment of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (“EPI”) in patients with cystic 

fibrosis; and (2) Blisibimod, a B-cell activating factor (“BAFF”) Inhibitor for the potential 

treatment of IgA nephropathy.

3. The Company is headquartered in Hayward, California and trades on the Nasdaq 

Global Market (“NASDAQ”) under the ticker symbol “ANTH.”

4. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading 

statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and compliance. Specifically, 

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) patients 

were not improving in the CHABLIS-SC1 clinical trial; and (2) there were dosing problems 

inherent in the Solution study design that created challenges to obtaining responses. 

5. On November 10, 2016, prior to the market opening, the Company issued a press 

release announcing that the CHABLIS-SC1 clinical trial with blisibimod for the treatment of 

systematic lupub erythematosus (“SLE”) failed to meet its primary endpoint. Defendants 

further revealed that the trial’s structure likely hindered the results by not allowing some 

patients to increase their dosage during the testing. As some analysts have stated, “while the 

drug was billed as a selective antagonist of BAFF,” that intended purpose “doesn’t look like it 

holds much water.” Accordingly, Defendants would likely abandon the trial

6. Upon this news, Anthera’s closing share price fell approximately 32% from 

$2.78 on November 9, 2016, to $1.90 on November 10, 2016.

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 22
3

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7. The following month, on December 27, 2016, the Company issued another press 

release, announcing the Solution clinical study in cystic fibrosis patients with EPI missed the 

CFA non-inferiority margin of the primary modified Intent to Treat (“mITT”). On this news, 

Anthera’s closing share price fell approximately 63% from $2.01 per share on December 27, 

2016 to $0.74 per share on December 28, 2016.

8. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous 

decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and the Class members have 

suffered significant losses and damages.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. The federal law claims asserted herein arise under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the 

Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and § 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the 

SEC, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, as well as under the common law.

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 and § 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78aa.

11. This Court has jurisdiction over each Defendant named herein because each 

Defendant is an individual who has sufficient minimum contacts with this District so as to 

render the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Court permissible under traditional notions of 

fair play and substantial justice.

12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 27 of the 

Exchange Act because many of the false and misleading statements were made in or issued 

from this District. Anthera is headquartered in this District, with its principal place of business 

located at 25801 Industrial Boulevard, Suite B, Hayward, California, 94545.

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff Jim Ferrari is a citizen of Tennessee. He purchased Anthera securities as 

set forth herein and in his certification filed herewith. 

14. Anthera is a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal executive 

offices located at 25801 Industrial Boulevard, Suite B, Hayward, California 94545.

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 3 of 22
4

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15. Defendant Paul F. Truex (“Truex”) was Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the 

Company until his resignation on December 2, 2016.

16. Defendant Craig Thompson (“Thompson”) was appointed as Anthera’s Chief 

Executive Officer (“CEO”) upon Truex’s resignation on December 2, 2016, effective December 

6, 2016. Thompson is also the President of Anthera. Previously, as of January 7, 2016, 

Thompson was the Company’s President and Chief Operating Officer.

17. Defendant May Liu is the Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration.

18. Defendant William Shanahan (“Shanahan”) is Anthera’s Chief Medical Officer.

19. Defendants Truex, Thompson Liu and Shanahan are collectively referred to 

herein as the “Individual Defendants.”

20. Anthera and the Individual Defendants are collectively referred to as the 

“Defendants.”

CONTROL PERSON ALLEGATIONS

21. By reason of the Individual Defendants’ positions with the Company as 

executive officers, the Individual Defendants possessed the power and authority to control the 

contents of Anthera’s quarterly reports, press releases, and presentations to securities analysts, 

money and portfolio managers, and institutional investors, i.e., the market. The Individual 

Defendants were provided with copies of the Company’s reports and press releases alleged 

herein to be misleading prior to or shortly after their issuance and had the ability and 

opportunity to prevent their issuance or cause them to be corrected. Because of their positions 

with the Company, and their access to material, non-public information available to them but 

not to the public, the Individual Defendants knew that the adverse facts specified herein had not 

been disclosed to and were being concealed from the public, and that the positive 

representations being made were then materially false and misleading. The Individual 

Defendants are liable for the false statements pleaded herein. 

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

Background

22. Anthera is a biopharmaceutical company focused on advancing the development 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 4 of 22
5

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and commercialization of innovative medicines that benefit patients with unmet medical needs. 

The company has two product candidates in development:

• Sollpura (also known as Liprotamase), a novel biotechnology-derived pancreatic 

enzyme replacement therapy (“PERT”) for the potential treatment of exocrine 

pancreatic insufficiency (“EPI”) in patients with cystic fibrosis; and

• Blisibimod, a B-cell activating factor (“BAFF”) Inhibitor for the potential 

treatment of IgA nephropathy.

23. Sollpura represents the first soluble, stable and non-pig derived PERT to offer a 

novel solution to patients, especially young children and adults who are either unable to 

swallow multiple pills or are forced to use gastric tubes in order to maintain appropriate 

nutritional health. Unlike other enzyme products for the treatment of EPI, Sollpura’s chemical 

characteristics, its solubility and stability, make it an ideal product in either a capsule or sachet 

formulation which can be conveniently co-administered with a variety of food products.

24. Anthera is conducting two studies with Sollpura: (1) the Solution Study; and (2) 

the Simplicity Study. The purpose of the Solution Study is to evaluate the non-inferiority of 

Sollpura compared to approved, porcine-derived enterically-coated pancreatic enzyme 

replacement therapy when administered to patients with cystic fibrosis and endocrine pancreatic 

insufficiency. The Simplicity Study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of Sollpura powder for 

oral solution, supplied in sachets.

25. Blisibimod is a selective peptibody antagonist of the BAFF cytokine, also known 

as B lymphocyte stimulator (“BLyS”), which is initially being developed as a treatment for 

lupus. BAFF is a member of the tumor necrosis factor family and is critical to the development, 

maintenance and survival of B-cells and plasma cells. It is primarily expressed by macrophages, 

monocytes and dendritic cells and interacts with three different receptor subtypes expressed 

predominantly on B-cells and plasma cells including BAFF receptor (“BAFF-R”), B-cell 

maturation antigen (“BCMA”), and transmembrane activator and cyclophilin ligand interactor 

(“TACI”). Blisibimod may offer a number of potential advantages over other BAFF 

antagonists, such as: (i) Tetravelent BAFF binding domans which give to 120-350-fold higher 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 5 of 22
6

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

avidity for blisibimod than reported for monocolonal antibodies; (ii) the ability to bind to both 

membrane-bound and soluable BAFF; (iii) lower molecular weight providing more drug per 

200mg weekly dose; and (iv) distinct intellectual property as a peptibody (relative to antibody 

and antibody-fragments).

The Material Misrepresentations and Omissions

26. On February 10, 2015, the Company announced the successful completion of an 

interim analysis of its Phase 3 trial (CHABLIS-SC1) of blisibimod in patients with SLE. The 

Company was “pleased” with the study’s ability to pass a “critical milestone” and seemed 

optimistic about the success of the remainder of the Phase 3 trial. The press release stated, in 

pertinent part:

D, Calif., Feb. 10, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Anthera Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc. (NASDAQ: ANTH) today announced the successful 

completion of an interim analysis of its Phase 3 trial (CHABLISSC1) of blisibimod in patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus 

and that the study should continue to completion as planned. An 

independent statistician conducted the interim futility analysis for 

the CHABLIS-SC1 study, evaluating the SRI-6 response at the 24 

week time point. Enrollment in the trial is projected to conclude in 

mid-2015.

"While the results of the CHABLIS-SC1 interim futility analysis 

remain blinded to Anthera, we are very pleased that the study has 

passed this critical milestone and now look forward to finishing 

enrollment later this year," said Dr. Colin S. Hislop, Anthera's 

Chief Medical Officer.

Prior to the interim analysis and in response to recent input from 

the Company's Scientific Advisory Board following the 

publication of clinical data from other Lupus studies with BAFF 

inhibitors, the Company modified the primary endpoint of 

CHABLIS-SC1 from SRI-8 response to SRI-6 response, which 

was previously a secondary endpoint of the study. SRI-8 will 

remain a key secondary endpoint of the study. The Systemic Lupus 

Erythematosus Response Index (SRI) is an approved endpoint 

recognized by the FDA for previously approved therapeutics.

"Based on the wealth of new information regarding the treatment 

of SLE and BAFF inhibition, we are fortunate to have had the 

opportunity to adjust our trial design," said Dr. Colin S. Hislop. 

"The SRI-6 endpoint has a history of consistency across multiple 

trials and represents the best possibility for success. Maintaining 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 6 of 22
7

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the SRI-8 endpoint as a key secondary endpoint can maximize 

our commercial opportunity for the severe patients we are 

enrolling in the CHABLIS-SC1 study."

(Emphasis added).

27. On August 10, 2015, Anthera issued a press release announcing that the 

Company “surpassed the enrollment target of 400 patients for the Phase 3 CHABLIS-SC1

clinical study” during the second quarter of 2015 and that “[t]opline efficacy and safety data 

from the study is expected in the second half of 2016.”

28. On November 6, 2015, the Company repeated that enrollment was closed for the 

Phase 3 CHABLIS-SC1 clinical study and “[t]opline efficacy and safety data from the study is 

expected the second half of 2016.”

29. On March 14, 2016, the Company filed an annual report on Form 10-K with the 

SEC, announcing the Company’s financial and operating results. The Company stated a 

summary of its product development programs, noting that the CHABLIS-SC1 Phase 3 trial 

“[t]opline data” was expected “in the second half of 2016” and the Solution Phase 3 “[t]opine 

data” was expected “towards end of 2016 or early 2017.”

30. The Form 10-K stated:

We believe liprotamase is potentially the first soluble, stable and 

non-porcine derived enzyme product to offer a novel solution to 

patients who are unable to maintain appropriate nutritional health. 

Liprotamase’s chemical characteristics, unlike currently available 

PERTs, make it ideal for powder formulation as either a capsule, 

or sachet of powder for oral solution which can be conveniently 

administered in solution in a small volume of water.

31. The Form 10-K further stated: “We believe the CHABLIS development program 

for blisibimod may offer a number of potential opportunities for differentiation versus the 

currently marketed BAFF antagonist and other novel B-cell directed therapies.”

32. The Form 10-K contained certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 

2002 (“SOX”) by Individual Defendants Truex and Liu, stating that the financial information 

contained therein was accurate and disclosed any material changes to the Company’s internal 

control over financial reporting.

33. On August 9, 2016, the Company announced that it met the enrollment target for 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 7 of 22
8

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Phase 3 Solution clinical study and that it expected to “report topline efficacy data in the fourth 

quarter of 2016.” With respect to the Phase 3 CHABLIS-SC1 clinical study, the Company 

reported that it “continue[s] to collect and prepare final data from the . . . clinical study as the 

final patients continue treatment in the study.” The press release explained that:

The last patient in the study received their final study dose 

on July 28th. As described in the protocol, patients are 

followed for eight weeks after their last dose at which time 

the final safety data is collected. Due to timing of this final 

visit, the company expects topline efficacy and safety data 

will be available prior to the annual American College of 

Rheumatology Annual Meeting in November. Topline data 

from the CHABLIS-SC1 will include the primary endpoint 

evaluation, a six-point reduction in the Systemic Lupus 

Erythematosus Responder Index (SRI-6) as well as safety 

and tolerability data from the study.

34. On November 4, 2016, the Company announced that it was “working diligently 

through the adjudication for the CHABLIS-SC-1 study, which completed the last patient visit in 

September. We currently plan to report topline efficacy and safety data prior to the 2016 

American College of Rheumatology Annual Meeting taking place from November 11th to 

November 16th. Topline data from the CHABLIS-SC1 will include the primary endpoint 

evaluation, the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index (SRI-6) as well as safety and 

tolerability data from the study.”

35. With respect to the Solution clinical trial, the press release stated that enrollment 

was completed and that “topline efficacy data” was expected to be reported before the end of 

2016. 

36. These statements were false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose 

that: (i) patients were not improving in the CHABLIS-SC1 clinical trial; and (2) there were 

dosing problems inherent in the Solution Study design that created challenges to obtaining 

responses.

The Truth Emerges

37. On November 10, 2016, prior to the market opening, the Company issued a press 

release announcing that the CHABLIS-SC1 clinical trial with blisibimod for the treatment of 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 8 of 22
9

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SLE failed to meet its primary endpoint based upon the SLE Respondex Index-6 (“SRI-6”) at 52 

weeks. The press release stated, in pertinent part:

HAYWARD, Calif., Nov. 10, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --

Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ANTH) today 

announced that the CHABLIS-SC1 clinical trial with blisibimod 

for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) failed to 

meet its primary endpoint based upon the SLE Responder Index-6 

(SRI-6) at 52 weeks. Although 47% of patients in the blisibimod 

arm versus 42% of patients in the placebo arm achieved this 

endpoint, the difference was not statistically significant. The SRI 

is a composite index comprised of SELENA-SLEDAI, BILAG and 

Physician Global Assessment criteria. A SRI-6 response requires a 

decrease of at least 6 points in SELENA-SLEDAI. The magnitude 

of blisibimod treatment effects for other SLE Response (SRI-4, 

and SRI-8) also did not achieve statistical significance.

Serum biological markers including B-cells, immunoglobulins, and 

complement demonstrated statistically significant treatment effects 

consistent with expectations and previous blisibimod clinical 

studies in lupus and IgA nephropathy. Adverse events between the 

blisibimod and placebo treatment arms were well balanced and 

blisibimod was generally well tolerated.

“We are disappointed that the results did not demonstrate a 

meaningful improvement in patients’ disease activity as assessed 

by SRI endpoints,” said William Shanahan, M.D., Anthera’s Chief 

Medical Officer. “We would like to thank the patients, caregivers, 

investigators and key opinion leaders who made the CHABLISSC1 clinical study possible. It has yielded significant amounts of 

data which we look forward to sharing with the scientific 

community in the future which we believe will help to further 

inform the development of treatments for severe lupus.”

The Company will continue to analyze the data in the coming 

weeks from the CHABLIS-SC1 trial in consultation with key lupus 

disease thought leaders to expeditiously determine the future of the 

blisibimod lupus program including the on-going CHABLIS 7.5 

clinical study. As the pharmacological effects on immunological 

markers, such as B-cells and immunoglobulins, were as expected, 

the company is continuing the development of blisibimod for the 

treatment of IgA Nephropathy (IgAN) pending 48 week results 

from the ongoing phase 2 BRIGHT study. IgAN has a very 

different pathogenesis than systemic lupus, and the 

pharmacological activity of blisibimod might prove effective in its 

treatment. The Company expects to report 48-week data from the 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 9 of 22
10

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BRIGHT-SC IgAN study and topline data from the SollpuraTM 

SOLUTION phase 3 study later this year.

38. As a result of the adverse results of the blisibimod trial, the price of Anthera 

common stock declined from a closing share price of $2.78 on November 9, 2016, to $1.90 on 

November 10, 2016, a loss of approximately 32%, on extremely heavy trading volume.

39. The truth was further revealed on December 27, 2016, when the Company issued 

a press release announcing the Solution clinical study in cystic fibrosis patients with EPI missed 

the CFA non-inferiority margin of the primary modified Intent to Treat (“mITT”) analysis likely 

due to the structure of the study, which likely hindered the results by not allowing some patients 

to increase their dosage during the testing. The press release stated, in pertinent part:

HAYWARD, California, December 27 2016 - - Anthera 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANTH) today announced the 

top line results of the SOLUTION clinical study in cystic fibrosis 

patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI). The study 

narrowly missed the CFA non-inferiority margin of the primary 

modified Intent to Treat (mITT) analysis; however, by additional 

pre-specified analyses of CFA (mITT-Baseline Observation 

Carried Forward and Per Protocol), Sollpura met the noninferiority criterion. The study also confirmed that the ratio of the 

three enzymes in Sollpura demonstrated an appropriate response in 

the coefficient of nitrogen absorption (CNA). CNA is a measure 

of protein digestion and absorption and is a key requirement of 

Anthera’s planned US FDA regulatory submission. Anthera 

expects to release data from the extension phase of the study in Q1 

2017.

In analyzing the results of the SOLUTION study, patients' ability 

to increase their doses during the study were hindered by time 

restrictions and amounts allowed per protocol, while other patients 

were prevented from increasing their dose due to the daily limit 

(10,000 lipase units/kg/day) for porcine pancreatic enzyme 

replacement therapies (PERTs). Sollpura was generally well 

tolerated compared to Pancreaze, although symptoms related to 

malabsorption were generally modestly more frequent in the 

Sollpura arm.

In addition to the challenges to dose escalation inherent in the 

design of the SOLUTION study, analytical techniques for 

measuring the activity of lipase enzymes based on duodenal pH 

of Cystic Fibrosis patients, indicate that Sollpura may have been 

under dosed versus the Pancreaze labeled dose.

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 10 of 22
11

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Given the robust activity of Sollpura in this study, in the context of 

dose titration limitation and apparent reduced dosage activity, 

Anthera will initiate activities for an additional clinical study of 

Sollpura in patients with EPI due to Cystic Fibrosis, which Anthera 

expects will enable optimized dosing and dose titration. This study 

will provide investigators and patients the flexibility to adjust their 

Sollpura dose based upon malabsorption symptoms at any time 

during the study. Anthera believes that these modifications in the 

study design will allow patients to achieve the optimal level of fat 

absorption as measured by CFA. The new study will begin in 

1Q’17, and Anthera anticipates only a modest delay in the filing of 

the BLA around Q1 2018, as the new study will complete 

concurrently with the completion of required CMC activities.

“In the SOLUTION study, Sollpura nearly met the non-inferiority 

margin with respect to fat absorption, and met the statistical 

criterion for nitrogen absorption. The study data suggest that the 

deficiency in fat absorption may be addressed by small changes in 

study design, including more liberal dose adjustment. A need for 

alternative treatments remains for EPI patients who are unable to 

maintain appropriate nutritional health, especially those who seek 

soluble or non-porcine therapeutic options” said Michael Konstan, 

MD, Vice Dean for Translational Research at Case Western 

Reserve University School of Medicine.

“Although we are disappointed to narrowly miss the primary 

endpoint, we remain encouraged by the overall SOLUTION study 

results and look forward to releasing final data from and its 12 

week extension phase in the future, the SIMPLICITY study and 

continuation of the open-label EASY study. We would like to 

thank the patients, investigators and study staff for their hard work 

and dedication to our study. We are most grateful for their 

commitment to our shared hope of developing new treatments for 

exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and believe that the 

shortcomings of Sollpura in SOLUTION can be addressed in the 

new study that we plan to initiate in 1Q’17,” said William 

Shanahan, M.D., Anthera’s Chief Medical Officer.

40. As a result of the adverse results of the Solution Study, the price of Anthera 

common stock declined from a closing share price of $2.01 per share on December 27, 2016 to 

$0.74 per share on December 28, 2016, a loss of approximately 63%.

ADDITIONAL SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS

41. As alleged herein, Defendants acted with scienter in that they knew that the 

public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were 

materially false and misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued or 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 11 of 22
12

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated or acquiesced 

in the issuance or dissemination of such statements or documents as primary violations of the 

federal securities laws. As set forth elsewhere herein in detail, Defendants, by virtue of their 

receipt of information reflecting the true facts regarding Anthera, their control over, and/or 

receipt and/or modification of Anthera’s allegedly materially misleading statements and/or their 

associations with the Company which made them privy to confidential proprietary information 

concerning Anthera, participated in the fraudulent scheme alleged herein.

LOSS CAUSATION

42. During the Class Period, as detailed herein, Defendants made false and 

misleading statements and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct 

that artificially inflated the price of Anthera’s securities and operated as a fraud or deceit on 

Class Period purchasers of Anthera securities by materially misleading the investing public. 

Later, when Defendants’ prior misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct became apparent to 

the market, the price of Anthera’s securities fell precipitously, as the prior artificial inflation 

came out of the price over time. As a result of their purchases of Anthera securities during the 

Class Period, Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered economic loss, i.e., damages, 

under the federal securities laws.

APPLICATION OF PRESUMPTION OF RELIANCE:

FRAUD-ON-THE-MARKET DOCTRINE

43. At all relevant times, the market for Anthera’s securities was an efficient market 

for the following reasons, among others:

a. Anthera securities met the requirements for listing, and was listed and actively 

traded on the NASDAQ, a highly efficient and automated market;

b. Anthera filed periodic public reports with the SEC and the NASDAQ; and

c. Anthera regularly communicated with public investors via established market 

communication mechanisms, including regular disseminations of press releases 

on the national circuits of major newswire services and other wide-ranging 

public disclosures, such as communications with the financial press and other 

similar reporting services.

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 12 of 22
13

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

44. As a result of the foregoing, the market for Anthera’s securities promptly 

digested current information regarding Anthera from all publicly available sources and reflected 

such information in the prices of the securities. Under these circumstances, all purchasers of 

Anthera securities during the Class Period suffered similar injury through their purchase of 

Anthera securities at artificially inflated prices and a presumption of reliance applies.

NO SAFE HARBOR

45. The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements under certain 

circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements pleaded in this Complaint. 

The statements alleged to be false and misleading herein all relate to then-existing facts and 

conditions. In addition, to the extent certain of the statements alleged to be false may be 

characterized as forward looking, they were not identified as “forward-looking statements” 

when made and there were no meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors 

that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the purportedly forward-looking 

statements. In the alternative, to the extent that the statutory safe harbor is determined to apply 

to any forward-looking statements pleaded herein, Defendants are liable for those false forwardlooking statements because at the time each of those forward-looking statements was made, the 

speaker had actual knowledge that the forward-looking statement was materially false or 

misleading, and/or the forward-looking statement was authorized or approved by an executive 

officer of Anthera who knew that the statement was false when made.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

46. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Anthera 

securities during the Class Period (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are Defendants and 

their families, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their 

immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity 

in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

47. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable, since Anthera has millions of shares of stock outstanding and because the 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 13 of 22
14

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Company’s shares were actively traded on the NASDAQ. As of October 31, 2016, Anthera had 

approximately 42 million shares issued and outstanding. While the exact number of Class 

members in unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate 

discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of members in the proposed Class and that 

they are geographically dispersed.

48. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact 

involved in this case. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class which 

predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members, including:

a. whether the Exchange Act was violated by Defendants;

b. whether Defendants omitted and/or misrepresented material facts in their 

publicly disseminated reports, press releases, and statements during the Class 

Period;

c. whether Defendants’ statements omitted material facts necessary to make the 

statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not 

misleading;

d. whether Defendants participated and pursued the fraudulent scheme or course of 

business complained of herein;

e. whether Defendants acted willfully, with knowledge or recklessly in omitting 

and/or misrepresenting material facts;

f. whether the price of Anthera securities was artificially inflated during the Class 

Period as a result of the material nondisclosures and/or misrepresentations 

complained of herein; and

g. whether the members of the Class have sustained damages as a result of the 

decline in value of Anthera’s stock when the truth was revealed, and if so, what 

is the appropriate measure of damages? 

49. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class because Plaintiff and the Class 

sustained damages from Defendants’ wrongful conduct in a substantially identical manner.

50. Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Class and has retained 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 14 of 22
15

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

counsel who are experienced in class action securities litigation. Plaintiff has no interests which 

conflict with those of the Class.

51. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I

Violation of Section 10(b) of 

the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5

(Against All Defendants)

52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though 

fully set forth herein. 

53. This Count is asserted by Plaintiff on behalf of themselves and the Class against 

all the Defendants and is based upon Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and 

Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. C 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

54. During the Class Period, Defendants carried out a plan, scheme, and course of 

conduct that was intended to and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing 

public, including Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged herein; (ii) artificially inflate and 

maintain the market price of Anthera’s common stock; and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other 

members of the Class to purchase or otherwise acquire Anthera’s common stock at artificially 

inflated prices. In furtherance of this unlawful scheme, plan, and course of conduct, the 

Defendants, and each of them, took the actions set forth herein.

55. Defendants, by the use of means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce: 

(i) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; (ii) made untrue statements of material 

fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made not 

misleading; and (iii) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business that operated as a fraud 

and deceit upon the purchasers and acquirers of the Company’s common stock in an effort to 

maintain artificially high market prices for Anthera’s common stock in violation of Section 

10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10-5.

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 15 of 22
16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

56. As a result of their making and/or their substantial participation in the creation of 

affirmative statements and reports to the investing public, Defendants had a duty to promptly 

disseminate truthful information that would be material to investors in compliance with the 

integrated disclosure provisions of the SEC, as embodied in SEC Regulation S-K (17 C.F.R. § 

229.10, et seq.) and other SEC regulations, including accurate and truthful information with 

respect to the Company’s operations and performance so that the market prices of the 

Company’s publicly traded securities would be based on truthful, complete, and accurate 

information. Defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions as set forth herein violated 

that duty.

57. Defendants engaged in the fraudulent activity described above knowingly and 

intentionally or in such a reckless manner as to constitute willful deceit and fraud upon Plaintiff 

and the Class. Defendants knowingly or recklessly caused their reports and statements to 

contain misstatements and omissions of material fact as alleged herein. 

58. As a result of Defendants’ fraudulent activity, the market price of Anthera was 

artificially inflated during the Class Period.

59. In ignorance of the true financial condition of Anthera, Plaintiff and other 

members of the Class, relying on the integrity of the market and/or on the statements and reports 

of Anthera containing the misleading information, purchased or otherwise acquired Anthera’s

common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

60. Plaintiff and the Class’s losses were proximately caused by Defendants’ active 

and primary participation in Anthera’s scheme to defraud the investing public by, among other 

things, failing to fully and accurately disclose to investors adverse material information 

regarding the Company. Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased Anthera’s stock in 

reliance on the integrity of the market price of that common stock, and Defendants manipulated 

the price of Anthera’s common stock through their misconduct as described herein. Plaintiff’s 

and the Class’s losses were a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendants’ concealment of 

the true financial condition of Anthera. 

61. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants were aware of material non-public 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 16 of 22
17

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

information concerning Anthera’s fraudulent conduct (including the false and misleading 

statements described herein). Throughout the Class Period, Defendants willfully and knowingly 

concealed this adverse information, and Plaintiff’s and the Class’s losses were the foreseeable 

consequence of Defendants’ concealment of this information.

62. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff 

and other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their respective purchases 

and sales of Anthera common stock during the Class Period.

COUNT II

Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act

(Against the Individual Defendants)

63. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation above 

as though fully set forth herein.

64. During the Class Period, the Individual Defendants were privy to non-public 

information concerning the Company and its business and operations via access to internal 

corporate documents, conversations and connections with other corporate officers and 

employees, attendance at management and Board of Directors meetings and committees thereof 

and via reports and other information provided to them in connection therewith. Because of 

their possession of such information, the Individual Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded 

the fact that adverse facts specified herein had not been disclosed to, and were being concealed 

from, the investing public. Plaintiff and other members of the Class had no access to such 

information, which was, and remains solely under the control of the Defendants.

65. The Individual Defendants were involved in drafting, producing, reviewing 

and/or disseminating the materially false and misleading statements complained of herein. The 

Individual Defendants were aware (or recklessly disregarded) that materially false and 

misleading statements were being issued by the Company and nevertheless approved, ratified 

and/or failed to correct those statements, in violation of federal securities laws. Throughout the 

Class Period, the Individual Defendants were able to, and did, control the contents of the 

Company’s SEC filings, reports, press releases, and other public statements. The Individual 

Defendants were provided with copies of, reviewed and approved, and/or signed such filings, 

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 17 of 22
18

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reports, releases and other statements prior to or shortly after their issuance and had the ability 

or opportunity to prevent their issuance or to cause them to be corrected.

66. The Individual Defendants also were able to, and did, directly or indirectly, 

control the conduct of Anthera’s business, the information contained in its filings with the SEC, 

and its public statements. Moreover, the Individual Defendants made or directed the making of 

affirmative statements to securities analysts and the investing public at large, and participated in 

meetings and discussions concerning such statements. Because of their positions and access to 

material non-public information available to them but not the public, the Individual Defendants 

knew that the adverse facts specified herein had not been disclosed to and were being concealed 

from the public and that the positive representations that were being made were false and 

misleading. As a result, the Individual Defendants are responsible for the accuracy of Anthera’s 

corporate releases detailed herein and is therefore responsible and liable for the 

misrepresentations contained herein.

67. The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of Anthera within the 

meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. By reason of their position with the Company, 

the Individual Defendants had the power and authority to cause Anthera to engage in the 

wrongful conduct complained of herein. The Individual Defendants controlled Anthera and all 

of its employees. As alleged above, Anthera is a primary violator of Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. By reason of their conduct, the Individual Defendants are 

liable pursuant to section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

68. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Anthera and the 

Individual Defendants, Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered damages in connection with 

their respective purchases and sales of the Company’s securities during the Class Period.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

(A) Declaring this action to be a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certifying Plaintiff as a representative of the Class and her 

counsel as Class counsel;

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 18 of 22
19

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(B) Awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Class damages, including 

interest;

(C) Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses 

incurred in this action, including and attorneys’ fees; and

(D) Awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as the Court may deem 

just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Dated: February 13, 2017 LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

By: /s/ Rosemary M. Rivas 

Rosemary M. Rivas 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: (415) 291-2420

Fax: (415) 484-1294

Shannon L. Hopkins (to be admitted pro hac 

vice)

Email: shopkins@zlk.com

Stephanie A. Bartone (to be admitted pro hac 

vice)

Email: sbartone@zlk.com

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

733 Summer Street, Suite 304

Stamford, CT 06901

Tel: (203) 992-4523

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Counsel for Plaintiff Brian Clevlen and 

the Proposed Class

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 19 of 22
Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 20 of 22
Brian Clevlen

Transactions in Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Class Period: February 10, 2015 - December 27, 2016

Date Transaction Quantity Price Per Security Cost/Proceeds

7/23/15 Purchase 10 $11.15 $111.50

7/23/15 Purchase 5 $11.15 $55.75

7/23/15 Purchase 20 $11.15 $223.00

7/27/15 Purchase 15 $11.00 $165.00

7/29/15 Purchase 1 $10.91 $10.91

8/7/15 Purchase 5 $10.00 $50.00

8/11/15 Purchase 10 $8.79 $87.90

8/11/15 Purchase 2 $9.00 $18.00

8/24/15 Purchase 16 $7.00 $112.00

8/26/15 Purchase 1 $6.67 $6.67

9/15/15 Purchase 3 $7.50 $22.50

9/16/15 Purchase 4 $7.97 $31.88

9/25/15 Purchase 1 $8.09 $8.09

10/1/15 Purchase 15 $6.03 $90.45

10/1/15 Purchase 10 $5.75 $57.50

10/1/15 Purchase 2 $5.54 $11.08

10/15/15 Purchase 10 $6.20 $62.00

10/20/15 Purchase 100 $6.19 $619.00

10/21/15 Purchase 15 $5.93 $88.95

10/22/15 Purchase 3 $5.85 $17.55

10/28/15 Purchase 10 $5.82 $58.20

10/30/15 Purchase 15 $5.80 $87.00

11/6/15 Purchase 7 $5.75 $40.25

11/9/15 Purchase 75 $5.76 $432.00

11/10/15 Purchase 24 $5.70 $136.80

11/10/15 Purchase 2 $5.70 $11.40

11/18/15 Purchase 20 $5.23 $104.60

11/24/15 Purchase 23 $5.13 $117.99

11/24/15 Purchase 1 $5.12 $5.12

12/7/15 Purchase 5 $4.93 $24.65

12/7/15 Purchase 22 $4.75 $104.50

12/14/15 Purchase 10 $4.62 $46.20

12/14/15 Purchase 15 $4.62 $69.30

12/16/15 Purchase 4 $4.37 $17.48

12/21/16 Purchase 100 $4.50 $450.00

12/28/15 Purchase 50 $4.50 $225.00

12/28/15 Purchase 15 $4.46 $66.90

12/28/15 Purchase 100 $4.45 $445.00

12/28/15 Purchase 20 $4.50 $90.00

12/31/15 Purchase 24 $4.48 $107.52

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 21 of 22
1/7/16 Purchase 2 $3.96 $7.92

1/12/16 Purchase 30 $3.11 $93.30

1/12/16 Purchase 50 $3.02 $151.00

1/27/16 Purchase 20 $3.10 $62.00

2/1/16 Purchase 25 $3.14 $78.50

2/3/16 Purchase 5 $2.86 $14.30

2/11/16 Purchase 40 $2.50 $100.00

2/11/16 Purchase 2 $2.52 $5.04

2/18/16 Purchase 33 $2.91 $96.03

2/23/16 Purchase 3 $3.01 $9.03

5/2/16 Purchase 23 $3.48 $80.04

5/2/16 Purchase 1 $3.47 $3.47

5/5/16 Purchase 31 $3.10 $96.10

5/12/16 Purchase 30 $3.32 $99.60

6/14/16 Purchase 30 $3.15 $94.50

6/17/16 Purchase 60 $2.98 $178.80

6/27/16 Purchase 10 $3.00 $30.00

7/15/16 Purchase 33 $3.00 $99.00

8/25/16 Purchase 98 $2.95 $289.10

9/1/16 Purchase 70 $2.90 $203.00

10/12/16 Purchase 50 $3.00 $150.00

10/14/16 Purchase 70 $2.94 $205.80

10/17/16 Purchase 50 $2.83 $141.50

10/17/16 Purchase 21 $2.81 $59.01

10/18/16 Purchase 36 $2.79 $100.44

10/19/16 Purchase 55 $2.63 $144.65

11/4/16 Purchase 70 $2.18 $152.60

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 22 of 22