Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against St. Jude Medical, Inc.

WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of St. Jude Medical, Inc. (“St. Jude” or the “Company”) (NYSE: STJ) between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of St. Jude during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold St. Jude, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at [phone], by e-mail to [e-mail], or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/st-jude-medical-inc-stj-durata.

St. Jude, a Minnesota corporation headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, develops, manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and neurostimulation medical devices for the management of chronic pain. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants concealed relevant information from the investment community relating to a report issued by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for one of its chief products, the Durata defibrillation lead. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Capitalizing on this was the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Daniel J. Starks, who took advantage of the artificially inflated prices of St. Jude stock, and sold 200,000 shares for proceeds totaling more than $7.6 million.

According to the Complaint, the Company stated during an October 17, 2012 earnings call that a St. Jude production facility located in Sylmar, California was undergoing an FDA inspection. This inspection was expected to generate the issuance of a “Form 483” - a form used by FDA investigators to list observations of objectionable conditions found during the course of an inspection. On October 24, 2012, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), attaching a heavily redacted version of the Form 483 issued by the FDA. The version released by the Company fails to include any product name associated with the inspection results.

However, on November 20, 2012, the FDA released its own version of the Form 483 for its inspection of the Sylmar facility. The version released by the FDA, while still redacted, nevertheless showed clearly that most of the observations of objectionable conditions listed on the form pertained to Durata. Despite knowing that most of the inspection report concerned issues pertaining to Durata, the defendants chose to conceal this information from the investing public by issuing the heavily redacted version. On this news, shares in St. Jude declined 12%, from a close of $35.71 per share on November 20, 2012 to $31.37 per share on November 21, 2012, on volume of over 26 million shares.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 5, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.