Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/24/2017 (Other)

Filing Date: March 12, 2012

According to the complaint filed 3/12/2012, Plaintiff brings this shareholder derivative action on behalf of Medtronic, Inc. against its officers and directors for breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company and violating Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between November 20, 2006 and the present.

Medtronic is a Minnesota corporation that manufactures medical devices, including
the INFUSE Bone Graft (“Infuse”) at the heart of this action. Infuse generates approximately $800 million in revenue each year for the Company.

Plaintiff’s claims arise from management’s intentional promotion of “off-label” uses
for Infuse. Off-label use is the practice of prescribing a device for an unapproved form of administration. A physician’s use of a device in a manner not specifically approved by the FDA is not illegal. It is illegal, however, for a manufacturer to promote a device’s off-label uses. Here, Medtronic’s officers and directors caused the Company to engage in this illegal promotion such that more than 85% of Infuse sales involved off-label use.

Medtronic’s officers and directors also caused the Company to issue false and
misleading statements about the revenues derived from Infuse sales, repeatedly touting and attributing the strong sales of Infuse to continued “strong acceptance” by the U.S. medical community. But the Individual Defendants failed to disclose that: (a) 85% of Infuse’s revenues were dependent upon off-label uses of the product; (b) off-label uses of Infuse were causing a significant and increasing number of medical complications to patients; and (c) the Company was engaging in an unlawful campaign to market and encourage off-label uses of the product in direct violation of the Corporate Integrity Agreement with the DOJ. Because of these false statements and material omissions, shareholders were led to believe that Infuse sales were stable and would continue to grow.

On March 25, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint.

An amended complaint was filed on April 23, 2014.

On March 30, 2015, the Court issued an Order dismissing this case with prejudice. On October 30, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of this decision.

On March 1, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MDT
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 12-CV-00633
JUDGE: Hon.John R. Tunheim
DATE FILED: 03/12/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/20/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/12/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan & Bottini LLP
    550 West C Street, Suite 2000, Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan & Bottini LLP, CA 92101
    619-241-4810 ·
  2. Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law
    E-1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law, MN 55101
    800.465.1592 651.297.6543 · info@ralawfirm.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 12-CV-00633
JUDGE: Hon.John R. Tunheim
DATE FILED: 04/23/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/20/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/12/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bottini & Bottini, Inc.
    7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., CA 92037
    858.914.2001 858.914.2002 ·
  2. Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law
    E-1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law, MN 55101
    800.465.1592 651.297.6543 · info@ralawfirm.com
No Document Title Filing Date