Opinion ID: 819233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiffs' Suit is Dismissed

Text: In February 2011, Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs opposed and moved to amend the Complaint. In dismissing Plaintiffs' § 11 claims, the court concluded that the 23 SAEs neither were a known trend or uncertainty pursuant to Item 303 nor made the Offering speculative or risky pursuant to Item 503, because the 23 SAEs that occurred after the launch of Feraheme but prior to the Offering were consistent with the previously . . . publiclydisclosed rates observed in the clinical trials. The court also remarked that one death does not a trend make. Plaintiffs' contentions regarding the information underlying the October 18, 2010 FDA Letter were also dismissed. According to the district court, no allegation in the Complaint linked the internet practices questioned in the Letter to AMAG's business practices at the time of the Offering. -13- Plaintiffs' claims under §§ 12 and 15 fared no better. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' § 12 claims under the same reasoning used to dismiss the § 11 claims, noting that both sections require a showing of an actionable omission. The district court also dismissed Plaintiffs' § 15 claims, on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to state requisite claims under either §§ 11 or 12. The court made no ruling in connection with Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the Complaint, and thus implicitly denied it. This appeal timely followed.