ILNews

Plaintiffs fail to prove claim that Zimmer misrepresented information

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two pension funds that own shares of Zimmer Holdings Inc. were unable to prove that Zimmer defrauded its investors by suppressing information, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

In Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund and Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.; David C. Dvorak; and James T. Crines, No. 11-1471, the two pension funds claimed that Zimmer had downplayed difficulties in manufacturing some of its products and the high failure rate one surgeon reported.

Zimmer makes orthopedic reconstructive devices, including the Durom Acetabular Component, better known as the Durom Cup. The device is used to replace the socket in a hip joint.  

One well-known surgeon, Dr. Lawrence Dorr, reported unacceptably high failure rates after using the Durom Cup in his patients. Zimmer attributed that failure rate – which was substantially higher than what other surgeons reported – to improper surgical technique. It stopped selling the device in the United States while preparing new instructions for implantation, but continued to sell the Durom Cup in Europe, where the failure rate was said to be less than 1 percent.

The plaintiffs argue that Zimmer knowingly misrepresented the reasons for the high failure rate Dorr reported, and that the problem stemmed from poor quality or design. The plaintiffs also content that Zimmer delayed revealing quality control problems in its Dover, Ohio, plant by reporting misleading earnings projections.

The 7th Circuit held that Zimmer did not try to hide the failures Dorr had encountered and had announced three months prior to Dorr’s findings that it was aware the Durom Cup was challenging to implant and that changes in labeling or training might be required.

In January 2008, Zimmer projected 10 percent to 11 percent revenue growth for the year and net earnings of $4.20 to $4.25 per share. In July, it cut that projection to 8.5 percent to 9 percent growth and net earnings of $4.05 to $4.10 per share. The plaintiffs maintain that Zimmer committed fraud by not using these lower estimates in January.

The District court dismissed the complaint, finding that it flunked the pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The 7th Circuit affirmed the District court.

“Plaintiffs point to many other supposedly false statements and a host of detail that supposedly shows that one or another statement was knowingly false,” Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote on behalf of the appellate panel. “The district court’s two lengthy opinions address all of these other statements.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT