Legal Opinion

In Re Medtronic Inc., Securities Litigation

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided March 10, 2009No. Civ. 07-4564 (RHK/AJB)PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs claiming securities fraud are required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“the Reform Act”) to allege the defendants’ fraudulent acts and mental state with particularity. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b). These requirements exist because “securities fraud actions ... if not adequately contained, can be employed abusively to impose substantial costs on companies and individuals whose conduct conforms to the law.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2504, 168 L.Ed.2d…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
  4. Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Macomb County Employees v. Stratasys Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2017
  2. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2009
  3. Cummings v. Paramount Partners, LPDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2010
  4. Freedman v. Saint Jude Medical, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2014
  5. MARKEWICH EX REL. MEDTRONIC, INC. v. CollinsDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2009

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API