Hospira, Inc.is an American global pharmaceutical and medical device company.

According to a press release dated November 21, 2011, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results.

Specifically, Plaintiffs charge that the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the Company suffered from extensive quality control issues throughout the Class Period, which undermined both the viability of and the supposed financial savings that would be generated by Project Fuel, a Company program designed to optimize operations and increase shareholder value; (ii) the Company was unable to remedy problems identified in FDA Warning Letters related to its infusion pumps, quality control deficiencies, and manufacturing weaknesses; (iii) the Company’s revenue guidance for 2010 and 2011 was misstated and lacked a reasonable basis when made; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and expected earnings were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made.

On October 18, 2011, the Company announced disappointing preliminary third quarter financial results and slashed full-year guidance, pointing to a production disruption at its Rocky Mount, North Carolina manufacturing plant, which accounted for approximately 25% of the Company’s sales. The Company attributed the production slowdown to the impact of an ongoing FDA investigation.

The result of the Company’s negative results was a 21% drop in the price of its common stock, which fell $7.85 per share to close at $29.51 per share on October 18, 2011.

On April 18, 2012, a Memorandum Opinion and Order was issued by the Court appointing lead Plaintiff and lead Counsel.

On February 13, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order which grants in part and denies in part the Defendant’s motion to dismiss and grants the Plaintiff’s motion to strike.

On March 27, 2014, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on March 31. On August 5, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement and entered Final Judgment.