CASE NO: A-19-796755-B Department 11
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Electronically Filed 6/17/2019 7:57 AM Steven D. Grierson CLERK OF THE COURT 1 COMPB 2 AARON D. FORD, ESQ. ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. Attorney General Nevada Bar No. 3402 3 ERNEST FIGUEROA, ESQ. ROBERT M. ADAMS, ESQ. Consumer Advocate Nevada Bar No.CASE 6551 NO: A-19-796755-B 4 MARK J. KRUEGER, ESQ. ARTEMUS W. HAM, ESQ. Department 11 Nevada Bar No. 7410 Nevada Bar No. 7001 5 Chief Deputy Attorney General ERICA D. ENSTMINGER, ESQ. State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney Nevada Bar No. 7432 6 General, Bureau of Consumer Protection CASSANDRA S.M. CUMMINGS, ESQ. 100 North Carson Street Nevada Bar No. 11944 7 Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 RICHARD K. HY, ESQ. (702) 684-1100; Fax (702) 684-1108 Nevada Bar No. 12406 8 [email protected] EGLET ADAMS 400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400 9 MIKE PAPANTONIO, ESQ. Las Vegas, NV 89101 TROY RAFFERTY, ESQ. (702) 450-5400; Fax: (702) 450-5451 10 PETER MOUGEY, ESQ. [email protected] LAURA DUNNING, ESQ. 11 NED MCWILLIAMS, ESQ. KEITH GIVENS, ESQ. 12 BRANDON BOGLE, ESQ. JOSEPH LANE, ESQ. JEFF GADDY, ESQ. ANGELA MASON, ESQ. 13 (Pro Hac Vice Pending) JOHN GIVENS, ESQ. LEVIN PAPANTONIO LAW FIRM JESSICA GIVENS, ESQ. 14 316 S. Bavlen Street, Suite 400 CHASE GIVENS, ESQ. Pensacola, Florida 32502 (Pro Hac Vice Pending) 15 (850) 435-7064; Fax: (850) 436-6064 THE COCHRAN FIRM-DOTHAN, PC [email protected] 111 East Main Street 16 Dothan, Alabama 36301 ROLAND TELLIS, ESQ. (334) 673-1555; Fax: (334) 699-7229 17 (Pro Hac Vice Pending) [email protected] BARON & BUDD 18 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, #1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 19 P. (214) 521-3605 F. (214) 520-1181 20 [email protected] 21 Attorneys for Plaintiff 22 State of Nevada 23 DISTRICT COURT 24 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA 25 26 27 28 Case Number: A-19-796755-B 1 STATE OF NEVADA, Case No.: 2 Dept. No.: 3 Plaintiff, 4 vs. 5 COMPLAINT MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL 6 HEALTH INC.; CARDINAL HEALTH 105, INC.; REQUEST FOR BUSINESS 7 CARDINAL HEALTH 108, LLC; CARDINAL COURT HEALTH 110, LLC; CARDINAL HEALTH 200, 8 LLC; CARDINAL HEALTH 414, LLC; EXEMPT FROM CARDINAL HEALTH PHARMACY SERVICES, 9 ARBITRATION LLC; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG 10 CORPORATION; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN CO.; 11 WALGREEN EASTERN CO., INC.; WALMART 12 INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS PHARAMCEY, INC.; TEVA 13 PHARMACEUTICALS USA,;TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; 14 ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; PURDUE PHARMA 15 L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; PURDUE HOLDINGS, L.P.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK 16 COMPANY, INC.; INC.; P.F. LABORATORIES, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHAN D. 17 SACKLER, MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; 18 KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; DAVID A. SACKLER; BEVERLY 19 SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; PLP ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS L.P.; ROSEBAY 20 MEDICAL COMPANY L.P.; BEACON 21 COMPANY; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; 22 SPECGX LLC; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.JOHN KAPOOR; RICHARD M. SIMON; 23 SUNRISE LEE; JOSEPH A. ROWAN; MICHAEL 24 J. GURRY; MICHAEL BABICH; ALEC BURLAKOFF; 25 26 Defendants. 27 28 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 II. PARTIES ........................................................................................................................... 7 4 A. Plaintiff ................................................................................................................. 7 5 B. Defendants ............................................................................................................ 7 6 1. Manufacturer Defendants ....................................................................... 8 7 8 a. Teva Entities .................................................................................. 8 9 b. Purdue Entities and the Sackler Defendants .................................. 9 10 c. SpecGX and Mallinckrodt Entities .............................................. 13 11 d. Insys Therapeutics and Insys Executives ..................................... 15 12 2. Distributor Defendants .......................................................................... 17 13 14 a. McKesson Corporation ................................................................ 18 15 b. Cardinal Health Entities ............................................................... 18 16 c. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation ........................................ 19 17 d. Walgreens Entities ....................................................................... 20 18 19 e. Walmart Entities .......................................................................... 20 20 f. CVS Entities ................................................................................ 21 21 C. Agency and Authority ....................................................................................... 21 22 III. JURISDICTION & VENUE ............................................................................................ 21 23 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS........................................ 23 24 25 A. Opioids and Their Effects ................................................................................. 23 26 B. The Resurgence of Opioid Use in the United States ....................................... 26 27 1. The Sackler Family Integrated Advertising and Medicine. ............... 26 28 iii 1 2. Purdue Developed and Aggressively Promoted OxyContin. ............. 28 2 3. Other Manufacturer Defendants Leapt at the Opioid Opportunity. 32 3 C. Defendants’ Conduct Created an Abatable Public Nuisance. ....................... 34 4 D. The Manufacturer Defendants’ Multi-Pronged Scheme to Change 5 Prescriber Habits and Public Perception to Increase Demand for Opioids ............. 35 6 7 1. The Manufacturer Defendants Promoted Multiple Falsehoods About 8 Opioids. ............................................................................................................... 36 9 a. Falsehood #1: The false or misleading claims that the risk of 10 addiction from chronic opioid therapy is low. ......................................... 37 11 i. Purdue’s misrepresentations regarding addiction risk ......... 38 12 ii. As the Owners of Purdue, members of Purdue’s Board and 13 Former Officers of the Company, the Sacklers had actual 14 knowledge of, sanctioned, and participated in Purdue’s deceptive, 15 misleading, and otherwise illegal practices ................................ 43 16 17 iii. Actavis’s misrepresentations regarding addiction risk ....... 57 18 iv. Mallinckrodt’s misrepresentations regarding addiction risk 19 58 20 b. Falsehood #2: The false or misleading claims that to the extent 21 there is a risk of addiction, it can be easily identified and managed. ...... 60 22 c. Falsehood #3: The false or misleading claims that signs of 23 addictive behavior are “pseudoaddiction,” requiring more opioids. ....... 62 24 d. Falsehood #4: The false or misleading claims that opioid 25 withdrawal can be avoided by tapering. .................................................. 63 26 27 e. Falsehood #5: The false or misleading claims that opioid doses 28 can be increased without limit or greater risks. ....................................... 64 iv 1 f. Falsehood #6: The false or misleading claims that long-term 2 opioid use improves functioning.............................................................. 66 3 g. Falsehood #7: The false or misleading claims that alternative forms 4 of pain relief pose greater risks than opioids. .......................................... 70 5 h. Falsehood #8: The false or misleading claims that OxyContin 6 provides twelve hours of pain relief. ....................................................... 71 7 i. Falsehood #9: The false or misleading claims that new 8 formulations of certain opioids successfully deter abuse. ....................... 75 9 10 i. Purdue’s deceptive marketing of reformulated OxyContin and 11 Hysingla ER ................................................................................. 75 12 ii. Other Manufacturer Defendants’ misrepresentations 13 regarding abuse deterrence ......................................................... 79 14 2. The Manufacturer Defendants Disseminated Their Misleading 15 Messages About Opioids Through Multiple Channels ................................... 80 16 a. The Manufacturer Defendants Directed Front Groups to 17 Deceptively Promote Opioid Use. ........................................................... 81 18 19 i. American Pain Foundation .................................................... 82 20 ii. American Academy of Pain Medicine and the American Pain 21 Society .......................................................................................... 85 22 iii. The Federation of State Medical Boards ............................. 87 23 iv. The Alliance for Patient Access ........................................... 89 24 v. The U.S. Pain Foundation ..................................................... 92 25 26 vi. American Geriatrics Society ................................................ 93 27 28 v 1 b. The Manufacturer Defendants Paid Key Opinion Leaders to 2 Deceptively Promote Opioid Use. ........................................................... 94 3 i. Dr. Russell Portenoy .............................................................. 96 4 ii. Dr. Lynn Webster .................................................................. 98 5 iii. Dr. Perry Fine.................................................................... 100 6 7 iv. Dr. Scott Fishman ..............................................................