Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/29/2014 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: June 27, 2013

According to the law firm press release, Medtronic is engaged in medical technology. The Company’s INFUSE® Bone Graft (“Infuse”) product, which was approved by the FDA for use in some fusion surgeries in the lower back as well as for some oral and dental uses, became an integral part of Medtronic’s Spinal unit after its introduction in 2002, contributing tremendously to the division’s growth.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements to the investing public regarding the use of the Infuse product for reduction of pain and complications associated with treating degenerative disc disease. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Medtronic’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $43.20 per share on May 18, 2011.

On June 23, 2011, Medtronic issued a press release that stated that the Company had received an inquiry from the U.S. Senate requesting information related to the Infuse product. On June 28, 2011, an entire issue of The Spine Journal was devoted to the Infuse product, including the conflicts of interest by researchers who had performed studies on Infuse and the underappreciated risks and side effects associated with Infuse. On this news, Medtronic’s stock dropped $0.92 per share to close at $38.09 per share on June 29, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 3% on volume of 10 million shares. Then, on August 3, 2011, Medtronic announced it would publicly release Infuse data for Yale University researchers to conduct a review. Medtronic agreed to pay Yale $2.5 million to assemble a steering committee, hire two research organizations to review studies of the Infuse product and design a database that could be used by outsiders to get access to the information. On this news, Medtronic’s stock price dropped $1.47 per share to close at $32.84 per share on August 4, 2011, a one-day decline of 4% on volume of 11.5 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, included that the Company had engaged in a scheme with certain researchers to downplay the risks and side effects associated with Infuse and that once those risks were fully appreciated by surgeons, use of the product would drop significantly.

On September 10, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion for Consolidation, appointing lead plaintiff, and approving the selection of lead counsel in this case. On November 4, the lead plaintiff filed an amended and consolidated Complaint.

On September 9, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss.

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 #: 13-CV-01686
JUDGE: Hon. John R. Tunheim
DATE FILED: 06/27/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/08/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/03/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  2. Zimmerman Reed, LLP
    1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street , Zimmerman Reed, LLP, MN 55402
    612.341.0400 612.341.0844 · info@zimmreed.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 13-CV-01686
JUDGE: Hon. John R. Tunheim
DATE FILED: 11/04/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/28/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/03/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant)
    28 Bridgeside Boulevard, Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant), SC 29464
    843.216.9000 843.216.9450 · inquiry@motleyrice.com
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (New SF Office)
    One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (New SF Office), CA 94104
    (415) 288-4545 (415) 288-4534 ·
  3. Zimmerman Reed, LLP
    1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street , Zimmerman Reed, LLP, MN 55402
    612.341.0400 612.341.0844 · info@zimmreed.com
No Document Title Filing Date