Talk:Idexx Laboratories

Notability

It's a publically owned company with 4k employees and growing. See monster, yahoo finance profile, glowing Juniper article (PDF) (google html), CYNTEGRA controversy, Wright Reports profile, Google Finance page, Reuters' watchpage, Business Objects profile, PRNewswire story, Hoovers review, or take a minute to read the IDEXX webpage. Sometimes PR really is true...or maybe look at the business units map (PDF) for IDEXX. Somewhere along the way, a company with offices in over a dozen countries must surely graduate into "notable". Tomer^talk 01:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As an employee, I probably shouldn't be doing too much editing of this article... Tomer^talk 01:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see why the article was tagged for notability -- the information you give on this talk page establishing notability isn't in the article. You know this company, you have reliable outside sources on this company, and as long as you stick with verifiable facts, I don't see a problem with your developing this article. This is a listed company. There are obvious risks in WP:COI. If you can stay neutral on your edits, neutral facts could be useful to Wikipedia readers. If you can include bad news as well as good -- without getting defensive -- it'll help everyone understand this company. :)

Frankly, I'd like to know more about this company -- its history, its structure, its products, its successes and failures. If you take a look at some other company articles such as Apple, Inc. and Conagra you can see some basic outlines for company articles. Take a look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. A company's financial information is only a part of the story, and often not particularly interesting to laymen. Four thousand employees help make and sell this company's products, and this company's products are purchased all around the world, right? Why? How? If you can tell Wikipedia readers about this, I say, tell the readers. Be bold. As long as you keep it neutral, I'll back your edits. --Busy Stubber 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm trying to find the best way to provide articles and content to help update the IDEXX page objectively. I'll make some updates myself to the page -- but would appreciate any guidance along the way to make sure I stay true to Wikipedia guidelines. I see that IDEXX is a 'stub class' article now and I'd like to bring the company up a notch to 'start class'. One step at a time. Thank you! Robinwoodcock (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)robinwoodcock

Cyntegra stuff removed...

I've removed the Cyntegra lawsuit stuff since it was not only given undue weight, it appears it was completely meritless to begin with (see the last line). Please discuss here prior to reinserting any of this stuff in the article.

Idexx's business practices are not without controversy. In 2006, Cyntegra sued Idexx Laboratories in federal court, seeking damages exceeding $700 million. The complaint seeks the termination of IDEXX’s practices of "exclusive dealing," alleging that IDEXX requires that its distributors refrain from selling the products of other companies that IDEXX defines as "competitive."

Letters to distributors from Idexx, originally marked as confidential but believed to have been erroneously made public by IDEXX’s attorneys, prove Cyntegra’s original claims of threats to veterinary distributors MWI, Butler and Columbus Serum Company by Idexx. In the complaint, Cyntegra alleges that IDEXX threatened these distributors if they carried Cyntegra’s products, resulting in the cancellation of planned orders by these distributors and leading to hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenues for Cyntegra.

In 2007 Cyntegra filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice who are currently investigating claims that IDEXX insiders and management failed to properly notify shareholders of the pending lawsuit by Cyntegra (which Idexx has described as "significant" in the their legal defense), in a breach of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations. Shortly after Cyntegra filed the lawsuit and prior to any public announcement, company insiders sold their own shares at substantial profit before a significant drop in Idexx share price. If this claim is proven, it would not be the first case that IDEXX insiders and management have been found guilty of insider trading. A class action lawsuit filed in 2000 charged Idexx and certain officers and directors of Idexx during the relevant time period with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by, among other things, issuing to the investing public materially false and misleading statements concerning the demand for IDEXX’s products, its competitiveness and the trends in its business.

On April 20, 2009, Cyntegra's appeal of the district court's decision, finding that Cyntegra's case was without merit, was rejected.[1]

Regards, Tomer^talk 04:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)