-
District Of Massachusetts Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action Against Biopharmaceutical Company
07/07/2026On June 29, 2026, Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its directors and officers, as well as the underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Nopphol Buathongsri v. Zenas Biopharma, Inc., et al., No. 25-10988 (D. Mass. June 29, 2026). In dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the Court held that plaintiff failed to plead any actionable misstatements or omissions in connection with the Company’s IPO.
According to the complaint, the Company is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing immuno-based therapies. The Company conducted its IPO on September 13, 2024, pursuant to a registration statement that depicted its development pipeline for its four ongoing clinical trials. Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of all investors who purchased the Company’s common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement for the Company’s IPO. Plaintiff alleged that the registration statement omitted that the Company’s research and development (“R&D”) expenses and cash burn had materially increased between the first and second quarters of 2024, and that the R&D expenses and cash burn remained at an elevated rate throughout the already in-progress third quarter. According to the complaint, the failure to separately disclose those quarterly figures allegedly misled investors into believing the Company was spending less quickly than it actually was.
The Court first addressed whether the alleged omission of quarterly and intra-quarter financial data rendered the registration statement misleading. The Court noted that plaintiff did not dispute that the disclosed financials were accurate, nor did plaintiff identify any provision requiring disclosure of quarterly or in-progress data. The Court found that plaintiff’s theory was belied by the registration statement itself, which disclosed that the Company spent more than $56 million on R&D in the first half of 2024—nearly double the prior six months—and that the Company repeatedly warned that its R&D spending and losses were high and expected to increase for the foreseeable future. Thus, the Court reasoned that plaintiff’s contention rested on an unreasonable inference that spending had peaked in early 2024 and declined in the third quarter because the Company’s own disclosures did not support this inference. The Court held that requiring further disclosures under these circumstances would amount to an untenable across-the-board rule requiring clinical-stage biotechnology firms to disclose in-progress quarterly burn-rate data.
Turning to Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K, the Court held that the registration statement did not fail to disclose a known trend or uncertainty. Specifically, the Court held that, even assuming the increased spending was a “trend,” the Company’s disclosure in the registration statement was adequate because the roughly 50% quarter-over-quarter increase in R&D spending was fully consistent with the disclosed first-half 2024 figures. The Court further observed that, when assessing the ways that R&D spending could double from one six-month period to the next, a fifty-percent quarterly increase was “something like a straight line.” The Court explained that an issuer conducting a public offering is not obligated to disclose interim results for a quarter in progress whenever it perceives that those results may disappoint the market.
Having found that plaintiff failed to plead an underlying Section 11 violation, the Court dismissed the Section 15 control person liability claim against the individual defendants, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
Securities Litigation