Company and Case Information

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors


Register


_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School


Abbott Laboratories
Summary: According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, on January 26, 2001, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, all of complaints that had been filed in 1999 on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Abbott stock and consolidated in "In re Abbott Laboratories Securities Litigation". The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on October 17, 2001. A similar complaint, filed by Lena Gallagher purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of ALZA stock, was also dismissed. The plaintiffs had alleged federal securities laws violations by Abbott in connection with Abbott's consent decree with the FDA regarding the manufacturing operations of Abbott's Diagnostic Products division in Lake County, Illinois. Plaintiffs have not sought further review and the litigation is now over. On March 28, 2001, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a number of shareholder derivative suits filed in 1999 against Abbott's directors in connection with Abbott's consent decree with the FDA. These suits had been consolidated as "In re Abbott Laboratories Derivative Shareholder Litigation".

The original Complaint charges that Abbott and two of its highest officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that defendants misled investors by concealing important information about an FDA audit of its diagnostic devices manufacturing facility. According to the Complaint, the deficiencies discovered in this audit led the government to file a civil suit against Abbott, which settled when Abbott paid a $100 million fine and discontinued production of many diagnostic products. The Complaint alleges that all defendants were fully aware of the deficiencies enumerated by the FDA audit because they received a detailed letter from the FDA on March 17. The Complaint further alleges that one defendant utilized his inside information regarding the artificial inflation of the Company's stock price to sell significant amounts of his personal Abbott stock holdings. In addition, the complaint alleges that the artificial inflation of the price of Abbott stock permitted the company to pursue two stock acquisitions of other companies under favorable terms.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 2834
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Major Drugs


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Abbott Laboratories
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: ABT
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.abbott.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Anderson, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al.
 COURT: N.D. Illinois  DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-6869
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Robert W. Gettleman
 DATE FILED: 10/20/1999  SOURCE: Business Wires
 CLASS PERIOD START: 03/17/1999  CLASS PERIOD END: 09/29/1999
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
  • Berger & Montague PC
      1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103
       (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net
  • Kenneth A. Elan
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago , IL, 60602
       (voice) 312782.4880, (fax) , mmiller@millerfauchner.com
  • Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
      270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com
  • Wolf Popper, LLP
      845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-6689Ave
       (voice) 877.370.7703, (fax) 212.486.2093, IRRep@wolfpopper.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  4

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Type:  Date on the document: 

    REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    In Re: Abbott Laboratories Securities Litigation
     COURT: N.D. Illinois  DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-6869
     JUDGE NAME: Hon. James B. Moran
     DATE FILED: 04/03/2000  SOURCE: Business Wires
     CLASS PERIOD START: 03/17/1999  CLASS PERIOD END: 09/29/1999
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
     PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Robert D. Allison & Associates
      122 S. Michigan Avenue Ste 1850 , Chicago, IL, 60603
       (voice) , (fax) ,
  • Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
      6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017
       (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  2

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    Memorandum Opinion and Order
    Type: Order Date on the document: 01/25/2001
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 11/14/2001

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Complaint Based Upon Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
    Case Name and/or Number: Lisa Fruchter et al v. Abbot Labs et al
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 06/22/1999
    Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Deborah Isaac, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 10/27/1999

    WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
    The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
    Go to Search  page | Go to Case Index  page | Back to Top