Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/28/2015 (Other)

Filing Date: September 10, 2014

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges that IRadimed failed to disclose that: (a) the Company's infusion pump systems had been significantly modified which could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the devices; (b) as such under applicable federal regulations the Company's products are "adulterated" and "misbranded"; (c) the Company's mRidium 3860+ infusion pump requires separate FDA clearance from the mRidium 3860 and mRidium 3850; and (d) the Company failed to disclose the material uncertainties and risks that their products were adulterated or misbranded.

On September 3, 2014, IRadimed Corporation shocked the market when it announced that it received a warning letter from the FDA. The warning letter requests that the Company immediately stop all activities that misbrand or adulterate its mRidium 3860 MRI infusion pump, mRidium 3850 MRI infusion pump, and the mRidium 3860+ MRI infusion pump, such as the commercial distribution of the device. This adverse news caused IRadimed Corporation's stock to fall $3.30 per share, or more than 30%, to close at $7.10 per share on September 3, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 17.

On May 26, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and closing this case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IRMD
Company Market: NASDAQ
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: S.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 14-CV-23337
JUDGE: Hon. K. Michael Moore
DATE FILED: 09/10/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/15/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/02/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 14-CV-23337
JUDGE: Hon. K. Michael Moore
DATE FILED: 12/17/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/15/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/17/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
No Document Title Filing Date