aibioPuma's malpractice suit against former law firm waits on North Carolina Supreme Court
Tickers PBYI
Puma is suing Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P. and attorney David L. Levy over its defense in the Eshelman case. The Court of Appeals revived the claim on Sept. 3, 2025.
Key facts
- Company
- Puma Biotechnology Inc (NASDAQ: PBYI)
- News type
- Legal
- Primary source
- Puma Biotechnology 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026 (SEC EDGAR)
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (Nasdaq: PBYI) is the plaintiff in a legal malpractice suit against the law firm and lawyer that defended it in an earlier case, according to its 10-Q filed Aug 6, 2026. The defendants are Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P. and David L. Levy. The North Carolina Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the defendants' appeal of a ruling that revived the claim.
Puma filed the suit on Sept. 17, 2020 in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The 10-Q gives no case number. It describes the defendants as the attorneys who previously represented Puma in Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et al. No other individual defendants are named.
The case
Puma alleges legal malpractice based on the defendants' negligent handling of its defense in the Eshelman case. It seeks recovery of the entire amount awarded in that case and all legal fees and expenses incurred in appealing from the judgment and retrying the damages phase of the trial. The defendants filed an answer on Nov. 23, 2020 denying the allegations of negligence.
The Eshelman case itself ended in a settlement. Puma's 10-K for 2024 says Dr. Eshelman filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice on Nov. 7, 2022 and that Puma agreed to pay him $16.0 million. Puma paid $8.0 million in January 2023 and $8.0 million in October 2024. The filings do not explain how that settlement figure relates to the "amount awarded" that the malpractice complaint seeks to recover.
Defendants
The defendants are Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P., the law firm, and David L. Levy, an attorney who previously represented Puma in the Eshelman case. Puma describes them as the attorneys who previously represented it in that case.
Where it stands
On Aug. 19, 2022, Puma voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice so the Eshelman case could conclude first. It re-filed the lawsuit on June 2, 2023. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2023, and the court heard them on Feb. 20, 2024. The Superior Court judge granted the motions on March 20, 2024.
Puma appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. On Sept. 3, 2025, that court reversed the dismissal of the malpractice claim and sent the case back to the Superior Court for further proceedings. The defendants filed a petition for discretionary review with the North Carolina Supreme Court on Oct. 8, 2025. The 10-Q says the Supreme Court has not decided whether to accept the case.
Puma's 10-K for 2024, filed Feb. 27, 2025, had reported the case at the earlier stage: the Superior Court had granted the motions to dismiss and Puma had appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
The status has not changed since Puma's 10-K for 2025, signed Feb. 26, 2026, which used the same words about the pending petition.
Why it matters to shareholders
The suit seeks recovery of amounts tied to the Eshelman case. The 10-Q gives no estimate of what Puma might recover and does not say whether Puma has recorded any amount for a recovery. It also does not say when the North Carolina Supreme Court will act on the petition.
Puma's other disclosed proceedings are patent matters: an infringement suit against AstraZeneca over Tagrisso, where the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of invalidity on July 9, 2026, and proceedings in China and Europe over NERLYNX (neratinib) tablets.