$ICPT Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of A Class Action Against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc Pomerantz LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-05377, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Intercept securities between September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020, both dates inclusive (the Class Period), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval of Ocaliva for treating PBC. Then, in late 2017, both Intercept and the FDA issued warnings concerning the risk of overdosing patients with the drug, and multiple reports of severe liver injuries and deaths linked with its use. Despite these concerns, Defendants continued to tout Ocaliva sales and purported benefits, and its potential indication for treating various other medical conditions. For example, just two years later, in September 2019, Intercept submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) to the FDA for OCA to treat patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of safety concerns associated with Ocaliva’s use in treating PBC; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of an FDA investigation into Ocaliva’s development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva’s continued marketability and the sustainability of its sales; (iii) any purported benefits associated with OCA’s efficacy in treating NASH were outweighed by the risks of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company’s NDA for OCA in treating patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.