Opinion ID: 2777754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Litigation Procedural History

Text: On November 16, 2012, two individuals filed a complaint on behalf of all purchasers of Abiomed stock during the Class Period. Simon, 2014 WL 1413638, at . In February 2013, the district court appointed the two appealing institutional investors as lead plaintiffs, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 20, 2013. Id. On April 10, 2014, the district court, in a thorough opinion, granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court found that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Abiomed engaged in off-label marketing practices and that those practices materially affected the stock price. Id. at -16. It also held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged several actionable misrepresentations: (1) Abiomed's statements that its policy was to refrain from off-label marketing; (2) Abiomed's statements that Impella revenue growth was attributable to particular primary source[s] other than off-label uses; and (3) Abiomed's statements about the Protect II Study [t]o the extent [they were made] to promote off-label marketing. Id. at -20. However, the court -22- found that the complaint's allegations of scienter were not cogent and compelling, as is required for pleadings in securities fraud cases. Id. at -23. The court also dismissed plaintiffs' § 20(a) claims because such a violation depend[s] on an underlying violation of the Exchange Act. Id. at . This appeal followed. Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in holding that they failed to adequately plead scienter and that the court should have granted them leave to file an amended complaint.