Confirm favorite deletion?
Business Associations Keyed to Bainbridge
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
Citation:900 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. 2017)
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
On June 15, 2014, Medtronic, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, announced its decision to acquire Covidien plc, a public Irish company, in a transaction to be structured as an inversion. In this transaction, Medtronic acquired Covidien through a new holding company with Medtronic and Covidien then becoming wholly owned subsidiaries of the Irish holding company. As a result of the inversion transaction, Medtronic now is subject to Ireland’s tax laws. Shareholder and named plaintiff Kenneth Steiner alleged that Medtronic reduced the interest of its shareholders to 70 percent of new Medtronic to secure and protect the tax benefits. Also, Medtronic shareholders had received no compensation from the company for the tax liability. Steiner alleged, Medtronic officers and other directors who incurred an excise-tax liability on their stock-based compensation as a result of the transaction were reimbursed by Medtronic for that expense. After the transaction was announced, Steiner filed a class-action lawsuit against Medtronic and members of its board of directors.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.