Boston Scientific Corporation - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Litigation Activity Indices

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Boston Scientific Corporation Summary: The original complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Boston Scientific, a company that engages in the development and marketing of cardiovascular and endosurgery medical device products, and certain individual defendants violated provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Boston Scientific provided highly explicit false and misleading assurances of the Company's ability to satisfy FDA regulations governing its medical device product quality, as well as affirmative representations as to the Company's knowledge and expertise regarding design, development, marketing approval and sales of its medical devices. The complaint further alleges over $400 million sold in insider trading.

The complaint further alleges that on or around August 23, 2005, based on the cumulative impact of three separate FDA Warning Letters, investors learned of defendants' broad-based concealment of its broken quality program and the risks the Company faced. As a result, Boston Scientific's stock price dropped $1.23, or 4.5% to $25.92, on volume of 15.8 million shares -- nearly $19.89 or 43.4% from its Class Period high of $45.81 on April 5, 2004.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, on February 15, 2006, the Court ordered that the five class actions be consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public Employee Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2006. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company made material misstatements and omissions by failing to disclose the supposed merit of the Medinol litigation and DOJ investigation relating to the 1998 NIR ON® Ranger with Sox stent recall, problems with the TAXUS® drug-eluting coronary stent systems that led to product recalls, and the Company’s ability to satisfy FDA regulations concerning medical device quality. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 8, 2006.

According to an article dated July 31, 2007, on June 21, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a securities fraud class action against Boston Scientific Corp. and its individual officers and directors, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations of fraud were not pled with the requisite particularity to evidence scienter and loss causation. The district court also found that Boston Scientific disclosed many risks associated with the alleged misstatements and that many statements were mere puffery.

The lead plaintiff filed an appeal from the March 30, 2007 Order on Motion to Dismiss. On April 17, 2008 the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's previous ruling on dismissal. Defendants have answered the complaint and discovery is scheduled to continue through June 2009. On November 7, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class. On November 7, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On March 10, 2009, Judge Douglas P. Woodlock granted the motion to certify the class.

On January 22, 2010, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 27, 2010, Judge Douglas P. Woodlock granted the motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants and the civil case was terminated. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on May 27, 2010. On August 5, 2011, the Court entered the Mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The district court's entry of judgment for the defendants is affirmed. Costs are a awarded to defendants.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3841
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Boston Scientific Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	BSX
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.bostonscientific.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

PSY Trading Incorporated, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al.

COURT: D. Massachusetts	DOCKET NUMBER: 05-CV-11912
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Joseph L. Tauro
DATE FILED: 09/21/2005	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/2003	CLASS PERIOD END: 08/23/2005
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania) 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.668.7987, (fax) 610.660.0450, esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Curtis V. Trinko LLP 16 West 46th Street 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10036 (voice) 212.490.9550, (fax) 212.986.0158, ctrinko@trinko.com Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles) 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310.201.915, (fax) 310. 201-916, info@glancylaw.com Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates 519 Alleghany Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219 (voice) 412.391.5164, (fax) , Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) , pivenlaw@erols.com Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.682.1818, (fax) 212.682.1892, email@murrayfrank.com Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (New York) 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516 (voice) 212.661.1100, (fax) 212.661.8665, info@pomerantzlaw.com/ Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106 (voice) 800.797.5499, (fax) 860.493.6290, sn06106@AOL.com Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut) P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT, 06415 (voice) 860.537.5537, (fax) 860.537.4432, scottlaw@scott-scott.com 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: 10

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/21/2005
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/23/2005

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Boston Scientific Corporation Securities Litigation

COURT: D. Massachusetts	DOCKET NUMBER: 05-CV-11934
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 03/02/2009	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/20/2003	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/15/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501, Minneapolis, MN, 55402 (voice) 612.341.0400, (fax) 612.341.0844, info@zimmreed.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Order Granting Mississippi Public Employee Retirement System Group’s Motion For Consolidation Of The Related Actions, Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Lead Plaintiff’s Selection Of Lead And Liaison Counsel
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/15/2006
Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/17/2006
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/30/2007
Lead Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 04/27/2007
Memorandum
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 06/21/2007
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/02/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/14/2009
Memorandum
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 04/27/2010
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 04/28/2010
Plaintiffs' Notice Of Appeal
Type: Notice of Appeal		Date on the document: 05/27/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/28/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Jack Yopp, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/27/2005
U.S. Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Yopp, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/21/2007

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

�