17.  Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company that developed  therapies for rare and orphan diseases.   18.  The Company has developed a therapy, an oral small molecule  pharmacological chaperone called migalastat, for the treatment of Fabry disease.  Amicus’ treatment purports to be a new option for patients afflicted by Fabry  disease who have amenable mutations.   20.  Prior to submitting an NDA, pharmaceutical companies can engage in  a process with the FDA, which can include a “Pre-NDA” meeting to discuss the  development of the drugs at issue.   21.  Executives from Amicus attended such a meeting with the FDA on  September 15, 2015, where it discussed its development of migalastat.   23.  Those that follow Amicus reacted positively to the press release. One  Twitter user, @bradloncar, stated on September 15 “$FOLD – 4Q15 AA NDA still  on track after pre-NDA meeting.  With reduction in disease substrate as primary  endpoint,” while linking to the press release. Another Twitter user,  @XsleepftLearner, tweeted “[positive] NDA news,” along with a link to the press  release.   25.  While Crowley stated that “[t]he guidance provided by the FDA  during the [September 15, 2015] Pre-NDA meeting further reinforces our  confidence in the NDA package and post-marketing confirmatory study we are  preparing for submission by the end of this year,” the FDA apparently provided no  such guidance to Crowley or others at Amicus during the September 15, 2015  meeting.   27.  After this so-called “Regulatory Update” revealed to the market that  Amicus had misstated the nature and outcome of the September 15, 2015 Pre-NDA  meeting, Amicus stock plummeted.    28.  Amicus’ stock price, which closed at $13.75 per share on October 1,  2015, and traded as high as $18.23 during the period between September 15, 2015  and October 1, 2015, opened on October 2, 2015 at $5.98 per share and traded as  low as $5.69 per share, before closing at $6.39 per share.    30.  Joseph P. Schwartz, an analyst for investment bank Lerink Partners,  LLC, who covers Amicus, is reported to have stated that the company’s October 2,  2015 press release came as a “huge surprise” to investors and noted that  “[a]dditional clinical data will be required to bolster the case for approval in the  46.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a Class of all persons and entities  who purchased or otherwise acquired Amicus common stock between September  15, 2015 and October 1, 2015, inclusive. Excluded from the Class are Defendants,  directors, and officers of Amicus, as well as their families and affiliates.   47.  The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable. The disposition of their claims in a class action will  provide substantial benefits to the parties and the Court.   49.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class because Plaintiff  and the Class sustained damages from Defendants’ wrongful conduct alleged  herein.   50.  Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Class and has  retained counsel who are experienced in class action securities litigation. Plaintiff  has no interests that conflict with those of the Class.   51.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy.  57.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained  above as it fully set forth herein.   58.  During the Class Period, Defendants disseminated or approved the  false statements specified above, which they knew or deliberately disregarded were  misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to disclose material  facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances  under which they were made, not misleading.   59.  Defendants violated § 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in  that they (i) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; (ii) made untrue  statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make  the statements not misleading; and (iii) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of  business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon those who purchased or  otherwise acquired Amicus securities during the Class Period.   61.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained  above as if fully set forth herein.   62.  Crowley acted as a controlling person of Amicus within the meaning  of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of his high-level  position at the Company, Crowley had the power and authority to cause or prevent  Amicus from engaging in the wrongful conduct complained of herein. Crowley  was provided with or had unlimited access to the September 15, 2015 press release  and other statements alleged by Plaintiffs to be misleading both prior to and  immediately after their publication, and had the ability to prevent the issuance of  these materials or to cause them to be corrected so as not to be misleading.  Violation of § 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Promulgated  Thereunder  (Against All Defendants)   Violation of § 20(a) of the Exchange Act  (Against John F. Crowley)  