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


St. Jude Medical, Inc.
Summary: According to the law firm press release, St. Jude develops, manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented that the Company’s Riata and Riata ST defibrillator leads were associated with short circuits and protruding wires, and that the Company’s QuickSite and QuickFlex Left-Ventricular leads also suffered from protruding wires. A “lead” is a wire that connects a defibrillator to the heart.

During the Class Period, the defendants told investors that two of the Company’s defibrillator leads, the Riata and Riata ST electrical wire, had been observed to wear through the silicone casing meant to contain them and protrude into the body. St. Jude thereafter discontinued sales of the Riata and Riata ST. However, the defendants failed to disclose the full extent of the problems with its products. First, the defendants failed to disclose that the Riata and Riata ST defibrillator leads were also associated with short circuits unrelated to the protruding wires. Although less frequent than the protrusions, the short circuits were much more dangerous. Second, the defendants failed to disclose that two other leads sold by the company, the QuickSite and QuickFlex Left-Ventricular leads, also suffered from the same protruding wires that plagued the Riata and Riata ST.

On March 27, 2012, The New York Times disclosed the results of an analysis performed by an independent researcher, Dr. Robert Hauser, which indicated that the Riata and Riata ST caused short circuits. However, the defendants vehemently challenged these findings, thus maintaining the artificial inflation in St. Jude’s stock.

On April 4, 2012, the defendants finally disclosed that the QuickSite and QuickFlex Left-Ventricular leads also suffered from the same protruding wire defect as the Riata and Riata ST. As a result, sales of the QuickSite and QuickFlex Left-Ventricular leads were also discontinued. Following these disclosures, the closing price of St. Jude’s stock dropped from $43.80 to $38.91 over three trading days, a decline of over 11 percent.

On August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Notice voluntarily dismissing this action without prejudice.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3845
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: St. Jude Medical, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: STJ
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.sjm.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Robert L. Satow, et al. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al.
 COURT: D. Minnesota  DOCKET NUMBER: 12-CV-01419
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Patrick J. Schiltz
 DATE FILED: 06/14/2012  SOURCE: 
 CLASS PERIOD START: 12/15/2010  CLASS PERIOD END: 04/04/2012
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Chestnut & Cambronne, P.A. (Minneapolis)
      3700 Piper Jaffray Tower, 222 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55402
       (voice) 612.339.730, (fax) 612.339.730,
  • Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (California)
      580 California Street, Suite 1750, San Francisco, CA, 94104
       (voice) 415.400.3000, (fax) 415.400.3000, info@ktmc.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  2

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 06/14/2012
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 06/14/2012
    Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)
    Type: Notice Date on the document: 08/20/2012

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Case Name and/or Number: 
    Type:  Date on the document: 

    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