Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 09-2524

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on December 13, 2010 2:00 PM

ERISA Class Action

In Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 09-2524, an action raising class-action claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA), the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint where plaintiff alleged no plausible claim that defendant's stock became an imprudent investment due to a physician's report on one of defendant's medical devices, or due to the company's actions following receipt of the report.

As the court wrote:  "Plaintiff Mark Brown appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint against Medtronic, Inc., several of its directors, a retirement plan committee, and various fiduciaries. Brown alleges class-action claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1973 ("ERISA") and seeks to serve as the representative plaintiff. His claims relate to purported breaches of fiduciary duties associated with information disclosures or non-disclosures surrounding two Medtronic products: Infuse-brand bone graft material ("Infuse") and Sprint Fidelis-brand lead wires for implantable defribillators and pacemakers ("Fidelis")."

Related Resources

Read the Eighth Circuit's Decision in Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 09-2524

Find a Lawyer

More Options