Dura Dogma Rejected

"Our securities laws do not operate in a vacuum." So says Judge Faith S. Hochberg (D. N.J.) in the Bradley Pharmaceuticals securities class action. That’s right all you Dura exaggerators, Judge Hochberg has labeled your grandiose versions of Dura as "rigid and dogmatic," and made it clear that "in Dura, the Supreme Court only suggested that the plaintiffs needed to have alleged in some fashion that ‘the truth became known’ before ‘the share price fell.’"

So, "guided by a pragmatic understanding of Dura, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately pled loss causation. The revelation of the 'truth' about the Deconamine sale did not take the form of a single, unitary disclosure, but occurred through a series of disclosing events. The February 28, 2005 announcement partially disclosed what the alleged misrepresentations had concealed from the market and began to reveal to the market place what the April 27 Press Release later confirmed."

Result? You already know, don’t you? Yep, Defendants’ motions to dismiss denied in full.

You can read In re Bradley Pharmaceuticals, issued March 23, 2006, at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13738.

Nugget: "As the Supreme Court noted in Dura, pleading rules are not meant to impose a great burden upon a plaintiff."