On October 17, 2012, St. Jude hosted a conference call to discuss its financial results for the third quarter of 2012. During the call, the Company informed investors of potential advisory action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) resulting from the FDA’s inspection of the Company’s facility in Sylmar, California. On this news, St. Jude’s stock fell $2.09 per share, or 4.87 percent, to close at $40.85 per share.On October 24, 2012, St. Jude filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the FDA’s inspection of the Sylmar facility and included a heavily redacted version of the FDA’s inspection report. In describing the inspection results, St. Jude claimed that “none of the observations identified a specific issue regarding the clinical or field performance of any particular device.” Following this news, St. Jude’s stock price fell $1.44 per share, or 3.63 percent, to close at $38.27 per share on October 25, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the FDA released its own version of the Sylmar facility inspection report. The FDA’s report revealed numerous concerns relating primarily to the design, production, and quality control of the manufacturing process of Durata leads. On this news, St. Jude’s stock price fell $4.34 per share, or 12.15 percent, to close at $31.37 per share on November 21, 2012, on exceptionally heavy trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last ten consecutive years. For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm’s representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of St. Jude Medical, Inc. (“St. Jude” or the “Company”) (NYSE: STJ) between October 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”). If you purchased the common stock of St. Jude during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than February 5, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. St. Jude shareholders who wish to learn more about the actions and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358. Background on the St. Jude Securities Class Litigation The actions charge St. Jude and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. St. Jude, a global medical device company headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, develops, manufactures, and markets cardiac rhythm management systems, which rely on insulated leads, including those marketed under the name “Durata.” The complaints allege that, throughout the Class Period, St. Jude made false and misleading statements, and concealed material information relating to the safety, durability, and manufacturing processes of the Durata lead wires. Specifically, defendants allegedly failed to disclose that: (1) Durata leads were subject to the same or similar design flaws found in St. Jude’s earlier generation of leads; (2) there were significant deficiencies in the design, manufacturing, testing, and quality control processes for Durata leads; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, St. Jude lacked a reasonable basis to tout the testing and manufacturing processes underlying the leads and its proprietary insulation material called “Optim,” to characterize the Durata leads as an improvement over its earlier generation of leads, and to claim that the Durata leads would be commercially successful.