Antipodean Dom. Partners, L.P. v Clovis Oncology, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Antipodean Dom. Partners, L.P. v Clovis Oncology, Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 31823(U) July 25, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 655908/2016 Judge: Andrea Masley Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 655908/2016 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2018 11:47 AM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 170 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK- NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: Andrea Masley PART _AL JSC ANTIPODEAN DOMESTIC PARTNERS, L.P., Plaintiff, INDEX NO. 655908/2016 MOTION DATE: -againstMOTION SEQ. NO. 006 CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, INC.; PATRICK J. MAHAFFY; ERLE T. MAST; ANDREW ALLEN; ANNA SUSSMAN; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC.; and MIZUHO SECURITIES USA INC., Defendants. The following papers, numbered 1 were read on this motion to compel production of transcripts of interviews conducted by the SEC. Iii z 0 PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits ... w CJ) Answering Affidavits - E x h i b i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j:::~ Replying Affidavits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ =L~ Cross-Motion: 0 <( CJ) C) 03: I- 0 ~:::l a::O a:: u... WW u... J: Wl- 0:: a:: >- 0 :::l u... :::> u... l- o w 0. CJ) w a:: !!? w D Yes ~ No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that motion 006 is granted. In connection with a pending SEC investigation into the Offering, the SEC interviewed eight Clovis employees. According to Clovis's 8-K, the SEC's action concerns "the Company's regulatory update announcement in November 2015 that the FDA requested additional clinical data on the efficacy and safety of rociletinib." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 161, Clovis Oncology, Inc., SEC Form 8-K, April 10, 2018). Clovis does not dispute the relevance of those SEC interviews to this action. (See e.g. In re Legato Sys., Inc. 204 FRO 167, 168 (ND Cal 2001). Nor could it: (See Allen v Crowe/1Collier Pub. Co, 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968] [the legal standard for discovery relevance is "any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity."]). Rather, Clovis argues against disclosure based on confidentiality; that the request is overbroad; and the request impermissibly piggy-backs on the SEC investigation. CJ) <( 0 z 0 j::: 0 :: The court rejects Clovis's confidentiality argument for the same reasons as stated in the decision on motion sequence number 005 granting plaintiffs motion to compel production of documents produced to the SEC. Further, the request is not overbroad, as this case and the SEC investigation, concerning the safety and efficacy of rociletinib, appear to overlap and may even be identical. Plaintiff asserts that defendants made false statements about the safety and 1 of 2 INDEX NO. 655908/2016 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2018 11:47 AM 2] NYSCEFefficacy of NO. 170 "breakthrough" lung cancer drug, enticing plaintiff and others to DOC. rociletinib, a RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2018 purchase Clovis stock at artificially inflated prices. Likewise, the court rejects Clovis's objection to piggybacking on a government investigation. Such a request is not only responsible and common, but efficient. (See Youngers v Virtus Inv. Partners Inc., 2017 US Dist. Lexis 198944, *12 [SD NY 2017]). For example, if it reduces depositions, then it is more efficient. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Antipodean's motion to compel is granted and Clovis shall produce the transcripts within 1O days of service of this order with notice of entry. Dated: _1-1---1~~-)-=-!8_ Check one: MOTION IS: Check if appropriate: 0. CASE DISPOSED };531 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION ~GRANTED D DENIED D GRANTED IN PART D O~HER D SETTLE ORDER D SUBMIT ORDER D DO NOT POST D FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT D REFERENCE 2 of 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.