DOCSLIB.ORG

PURDUE PHARMA LP, Et Al., Debtors.1 Chapter 11 Case No. 19

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PURDUE PHARMA LP, Et Al., Debtors.1 Chapter 11 Case No. 19 19-23649-rdd Doc 2488 Filed 03/15/21 Entered 03/15/21 23:56:19 Main Document Pg 1 of 213 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: Chapter 11 PURDUE PHARMA L.P., et al., Case No. 19-23649 (RDD) Debtors.1 (Jointly Administered) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FOR CHAPTER 11 PLAN FOR PURDUE PHARMA L.P. AND ITS AFFILIATED DEBTORS THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION OF AN ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF THE PLAN. ACCEPTANCES OR REJECTIONS MAY NOT BE SOLICITED UNTIL THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IS BEING SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL BUT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. THE INFORMATION IN THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IS NOT AN OFFER TO SELL ANY SECURITIES AND IS NOT SOLICITING AN OFFER TO BUY ANY SECURITIES. 1 The Debtors in these cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s registration number in the applicable jurisdiction, are as follows: Purdue Pharma L.P. (7484), Purdue Pharma Inc. (7486), Purdue Transdermal Technologies L.P. (1868), Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P. (3821), Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P. (0034), Imbrium Therapeutics L.P. (8810), Adlon Therapeutics L.P. (6745), Greenfield BioVentures L.P. (6150), Seven Seas Hill Corp. (4591), Ophir Green Corp. (4594), Purdue Pharma of Puerto Rico (3925), Avrio Health L.P. (4140), Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P. (3902), Purdue Neuroscience Company (4712), Nayatt Cove Lifescience Inc. (7805), Button Land L.P. (7502), Rhodes Associates L.P. (N/A), Paul Land Inc. (7425), Quidnick Land L.P. (7584), Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P. (6166), Rhodes Technologies (7143), UDF LP (0495), SVC Pharma LP (5717) and SVC Pharma Inc. (4014). The Debtors’ corporate headquarters is located at One Stamford Forum, 201 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06901. 19-23649-rdd Doc 2488 Filed 03/15/21 Entered 03/15/21 23:56:19 Main Document Pg 2 of 213 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800 Marshall S. Huebner Benjamin S. Kaminetzky Timothy Graulich Eli J. Vonnegut Christopher S. Robertson Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession Dated: March 15, 2021 New York, New York 19-23649-rdd Doc 2488 Filed 03/15/21 Entered 03/15/21 23:56:19 Main Document Pg 3 of 213 DISCLAIMER THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN AND CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION. THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION INCLUDED HEREIN IS FOR PURPOSES OF SOLICITING ACCEPTANCES OF THE PLAN AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DETERMINE HOW AND WHETHER TO VOTE ON THE PLAN. THE DEBTORS BELIEVE THAT THESE SUMMARIES ARE FAIR AND ACCURATE. THE SUMMARIES OF THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ATTACHED HERETO ARE QUALIFIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS. IN THE EVENT OF ANY INCONSISTENCY OR DISCREPANCY BETWEEN A DESCRIPTION IN THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN OR SUCH OTHER PLAN-RELATED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION, THE PLAN OR SUCH OTHER PLAN-RELATED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL GOVERN FOR ALL PURPOSES. THE STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN HAVE BEEN MADE AS OF THE DATE HEREOF UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. HOLDERS OF CLAIMS REVIEWING THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT INFER AT THE TIME OF SUCH REVIEW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES IN THE FACTS SET FORTH HEREIN SINCE THE DATE HEREOF. EACH HOLDER OF A CLAIM ENTITLED TO VOTE ON THE PLAN SHOULD CAREFULLY REVIEW THE PLAN AND THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IN THEIR ENTIRETY BEFORE CASTING A BALLOT (AS DEFINED HEREIN). THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL, BUSINESS, FINANCIAL, OR TAX ADVICE. ANY PERSONS DESIRING ANY SUCH ADVICE OR OTHER ADVICE SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN ADVISORS. ALTHOUGH THE DEBTORS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY NOTED, THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN AUDITED. THE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS (AS DEFINED HEREIN) PROVIDED IN THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBTORS AND THEIR FINANCIAL ADVISORS. THESE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS, WHILE PRESENTED WITH NUMERICAL SPECIFICITY, ARE NECESSARILY BASED ON A VARIETY OF ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS THAT, ALTHOUGH CONSIDERED REASONABLE BY MANAGEMENT, MAY NOT BE REALIZED AND ARE INHERENTLY SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS, ECONOMIC, COMPETITIVE, INDUSTRY, REGULATORY, MARKET, AND FINANCIAL UNCERTAINTIES AND CONTINGENCIES, MANY OF WHICH ARE BEYOND THE DEBTORS’ CONTROL. THE DEBTORS CAUTION THAT NO REPRESENTATIONS CAN BE MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THESE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS OR THE ABILITY TO ACHIEVE THE PROJECTED RESULTS. SOME ASSUMPTIONS INEVITABLY WILL NOT 19-23649-rdd Doc 2488 Filed 03/15/21 Entered 03/15/21 23:56:19 Main Document Pg 4 of 213 MATERIALIZE. FURTHER, EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OCCURRING SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE ON WHICH THESE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS WERE PREPARED MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE ASSUMED AND/OR MAY HAVE BEEN UNANTICIPATED AND, THUS, THE OCCURRENCE OF THESE EVENTS MAY AFFECT FINANCIAL RESULTS IN A MATERIALLY ADVERSE OR MATERIALLY BENEFICIAL MANNER. THE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS, THEREFORE, MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON AS A GUARANTEE OR OTHER ASSURANCE OF THE ACTUAL RESULTS THAT WILL OCCUR. NO PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO GIVE ANY INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PLAN OTHER THAN THAT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. NO REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THE DEBTORS OR THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE DEBTORS OTHER THAN AS SET FORTH IN THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. ANY INFORMATION, REPRESENTATIONS, OR INDUCEMENTS MADE TO OBTAIN AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN OTHER THAN, OR INCONSISTENT WITH, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN AND IN THE PLAN SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY HOLDER OF A CLAIM. WITH RESPECT TO CONTESTED MATTERS, ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS, AND OTHER PENDING, THREATENED, OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION OR ACTIONS, THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE, AND MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED BY ANY PARTY AS, AN ADMISSION OF FACT, LIABILITY, STIPULATION, OR WAIVER, BUT RATHER AS A STATEMENT MADE IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS. THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT WILL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN ANY NON-BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING NOR WILL IT BE CONSTRUED TO CONSTITUTE ADVICE ON THE TAX, SECURITIES, OR OTHER LEGAL EFFECTS OF THE PLAN AS IT RELATES TO THE HOLDERS OF CLAIMS AGAINST, OR INTERESTS IN, THE DEBTORS. THE SECURITIES DESCRIBED HEREIN WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT REGISTRATION UNDER THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”), OR ANY SIMILAR FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL LAW, IN RELIANCE ON THE EXEMPTIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1145 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1125(E) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE, A DEBTOR OR ANY OF ITS AGENTS THAT PARTICIPATES, IN GOOD FAITH AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE, IN THE OFFER, ISSUANCE, SALE, OR PURCHASE OF A SECURITY, OFFERED OR SOLD UNDER THE PLAN, OF THE DEBTOR, OF AN AFFILIATE PARTICIPATING IN A JOINT PLAN WITH THE DEBTOR, OR OF A NEWLY ORGANIZED SUCCESSOR TO THE DEBTOR UNDER THE PLAN, IS NOT LIABLE, ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PARTICIPATION, FOR VIOLATION OF ANY APPLICABLE LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION GOVERNING THE OFFER, ISSUANCE, SALE, OR PURCHASE OF SECURITIES. ii 19-23649-rdd Doc 2488 Filed 03/15/21 Entered 03/15/21 23:56:19 Main Document Pg 5 of 213 THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1125 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE AND BANKRUPTCY RULE 3016(B) AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL OR STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR OTHER NON-APPLICABLE BANKRUPTCY LAWS. THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (THE “SEC”), NOR HAS THE SEC PASSED UPON THE ACCURACY OR ADEQUACY OF THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN. SEE ARTICLE VIII OF THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, ENTITLED “CERTAIN RISK FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED PRIOR TO VOTING,” FOR A DISCUSSION OF CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH A DECISION BY A HOLDER OF AN IMPAIRED CLAIM TO ACCEPT THE PLAN. iii 19-23649-rdd Doc 2488 Filed 03/15/21 Entered 03/15/21 23:56:19 Main Document Pg 6 of 213 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ARTICLE I INTRODUCTION 1 A. Purpose of the Disclosure Statement ...................................................................................1 B. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................2 C. Summary of Classification and Treatment of Claims and Interests in the Debtors .............8 D. The DOJ Resolution, Settlements with the Private Claimant Groups and Shareholder Contribution Are Interdependent and Vastly Superior to Potential Alternatives ..............12 E. Channeling Injunction ........................................................................................................15 F. Releases..............................................................................................................................15 G. Confirmation of the Plan ....................................................................................................16 H. Voting Procedures and Voting Deadline ...........................................................................17 I. Disclosure Statement Enclosures .......................................................................................18 J. Confirmation Hearing ........................................................................................................18
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Tort Practice Trusted Advisors to the Health Sciences Industry
    Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Tort Practice Trusted Advisors to the Health Sciences Industry Today’s product liability cases reach far beyond one courtroom, requiring more than Product Liability a case-by-case approach. Because we take a strategic approach to litigation, King & “Law Firm of the Spalding’s product liability practice is recognized as one of the best in the nation. Year” in 2016 Recognizing that our clients need to protect their businesses, including the continued viability of their products in the marketplace, our lawyers work together with both Law360 our FDA & Life Sciences practice group and our Government Investigations team to provide a 360° defense. As one client noted, “Cases can spill over into other things _________________ like regulatory issues … King & Spalding can bring it all.” And we do. • The largest health law practice in the nation, according to the American Health Mass Tort / Class Lawyers Association, providing additional depth of experience on healthcare Action “Law Firm regulatory and litigation issues. of the Year” in 2015 • A stable of specialists in the relevant sciences, as well as former FDA and DEA regulatory officials who provide highly sophisticated support to our litigation defense. U.S. News & World • IP attorneys who successfully represent biotechnology and pharmaceutical Report clients in prosecuting, obtaining and defending patents. _________________ Trial Ready When Needed We add to our strategic approach a range of trial experience that is increasingly Life Sciences “Law unusual in firms of our size. We try cases every year throughout the nation. With four Firm of the Year” in Fellows in the American College of Trial Lawyers, an organization whose members 2017 are elected based on actual courtroom experience, we serve notice to opposing counsel that they should not count their cases as settled.
    [Show full text]
  • Purdue Pharma to Pay $270 Million to Settle Historic Oklahoma Opioid Lawsuit
    Purdue Pharma to pay $270 million to settle historic Oklahoma opioid lawsuit (CNN) — Purdue Pharma has agreed to pay $270 million to settle a historic lawsuit brought by the Oklahoma attorney general, who accused the OxyContin maker of aggressively marketing the opioid painkiller and fueling a drug epidemic that left thousands dead in the state. The settlement comes after Purdue fought the attorney general in court, seeking to delay the start of the trial, which is scheduled for May 28. "It is a new day in Oklahoma, and for the nation, in our battle against addiction and the opioid epidemic," Attorney General Mike Hunter said Tuesday in Tulsa. Hunter said that $102.5 million of the settlement would be used to help establish a national addiction treatment and research center at Oklahoma State University, with additional payments of $15 million each year for the next five years beginning in 2020. The company will also provide $20 million of addiction treatment and opioid rescue medications to the center over the same five-year time frame. A remaining $12.5 million from the settlement will be used directly to help cities and counties with the opioid crisis. The Sackler family, who founded and own Purdue Pharma, will also contribute $75 million over the next five years to the treatment and research center. "Purdue is very pleased to have reached an agreement with Oklahoma that will help those who are battling addiction now and in the future," Dr. Craig Landau, president and CEO of Purdue Pharma, said in a statement. The lawsuit was brought by Hunter against some of the nation's leading makers of opioid pain medications, alleging that deceptive marketing over the past decade fueled the epidemic in the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth of Kentucky
    CAUSE NO. DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT § D/B/A PARKLAND HEALTH & § IN THE DISTRICT COURT HOSPITAL SYSTEM; PALO PINTO § COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT A/K/A § PALO PINTO GENERAL HOSPITAL; § GUADALUPE VALLEY HOSPITAL A/K/A § GUADALUPE REGIONAL MEDICAL § CENTER; VHS SAN ANTONIO § PARTNERS, LLC D/B/A BAPTIST § OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER, MISSION TRAIL § BAPTIST HOSPITAL, NORTH CENTRAL § BAPTIST HOSPITAL, NORTHEAST § BAPTIST HOSPITAL, and ST. LUKE’S § BAPTIST HOSPITAL; NACOGDOCHES § MEDICAL CENTER; RESOLUTE § HOSPITAL COMPANY, LLC D/B/A § _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT RESOLUTE HEALTH; THE HOSPITALS § OF PROVIDENCE EAST CAMPUS; THE § HOSPITALS OF PROVIDENCE § MEMORIAL CAMPUS; THE HOSPITALS § OF PROVIDENCE SIERRA CAMPUS; THE § HOSPITALS OF PROVIDENCE § TRANSMOUNTAIN CAMPUS; VHS § BROWNSVILLE HOSPITAL COMPANY, § LLC D/B/A VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL § CENTER - BROWNSVILLE; VHS § HARLINGEN HOSPITAL COMPANY, LLC § D/B/A VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL § CENTER; ARMC, L.P. D/B/A ABILENE § REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; § COLLEGE STATION HOSPITAL, LP; § GRANBURY HOSPITAL CORPORATION § D/B/A LAKE GRANBURY MEDICAL § CENTER; NAVARRO HOSPITAL, L.P. § D/B/A NAVARRO REGIONAL HOSPITAL; § BROWNWOOD HOSPITAL, L.P. D/B/A § BROWNWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL § CENTER; VICTORIA OF TEXAS, L.P. § D/B/A DETAR HOSPITAL NAVARRO and § DETAR HOSPITAL NORTH; LAREDO § TEXAS HOSPITAL COMPANY, L.P. D/B/A § LAREDO MEDICAL CENTER; SAN § ANGELO HOSPITAL, L.P. D/B/A SAN § ANGELO COMMUNITY MEDICAL § CENTER; CEDAR PARK HEALTH § SYSTEM, L.P. D/B/A CEDAR PARK § REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; NHCI § OF HILLSBORO, INC. D/B/A HILL § REGIONAL HOSPITAL; LONGVIEW § MEDICAL CENTER, L.P. D/B/A § LONGVIEW REGIONAL MEDICAL § CENTER; and PINEY WOODS § HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, L.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Product Hopping 2.0: Getting the FDA to Yank Your Original License Beats Stacking Patents Lars Noah
    Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 19 | Issue 2 Article 2 Product Hopping 2.0: Getting the FDA To Yank Your Original License Beats Stacking Patents Lars Noah Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Repository Citation Lars Noah, Product Hopping 2.0: Getting the FDA To Yank Your Original License Beats Stacking Patents, 19 Marq. Intellectual Property L. Rev. 161 (2015). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol19/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOAH FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/9/2015 4:17 PM ARTICLES PRODUCT HOPPING 2.0: GETTING THE FDA TO YANK YOUR ORIGINAL LICENSE BEATS STACKING PATENTS LARS NOAH* INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 165 I.A PRIMER ON PRODUCT HOPPING IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY ... 165 II. NEW & IMPROVED PRODUCT HOPPING: THE OXYCONTIN MANEUVER ... 172 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 179 * Professor of Law, University of Florida. NOAH FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/9/2015 4:17 PM 162 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. [Vol. 19:2 NOAH FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/9/2015 4:17 PM 2015] PRODUCT HOPPING 2.0 163 Lars Noah is a Professor of Law at the Univeersity of Florida, where he has taught courses in Administrative Law, Biommedical Innoovation, Medical Technology, Public Health Law, and Torts, among other subjects.
    [Show full text]
  • PURDUE PHARMA, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, PURDUE PHARMA INC., a New York Corporation, and RICHARD SACKLER, M.D
    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BOONE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel. PATRICK MORRISEY, Attorney General, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. JUDGE PURDUE PHARMA, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, PURDUE PHARMA INC., a New York corporation, and RICHARD SACKLER, M.D. Defendants. COMPLAINT This action is brought in the name of the State of West Virginia in its sovereign capacity by Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 46A-7-108 of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code § 46A- 1-101 et seq. ("WVCCPA"), against Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., and Richard Sackler, M.D., to protect consumers and the integrity of the commercial marketplace in West Virginia. This action is brought against Richard Sackler individually and as a director on the Board of Purdue Pharma, Inc. The State also brings suit pursuant to the Attorney General's common law police power to abate and remedy the statewide public nuisance created by the Defendants' interference with the commercial marketplace and endangerment of the public health. BACKGROUND 1. In June 2001, the State of West Virginia, the Bureau of Employment Programs, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services and the West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Agency sued Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., and Purdue Frederick Company in the Circuit Court of McDowell County, West Virginia, Civil Action No. 01-C-137-S, for violations of the WVCCPA, in connection with the sale and marketing of OxyContin®. The parties entered into a settlement agreement that was approved by Final Order dated December 22, 2004 ("2004 Settlement").
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:17-Cv-00450-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 18 Pageid #: 1
    Case 1:17-cv-00450-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PURDUE PHARMA L.P., PURDUE ) PHARMACEUTICALS L.P., THE P.F. ) LABORATORIES, INC., and RHODES ) TECHNOLOGIES, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) C.A. No. __________________ v. ) ) ABHAI, LLC and KVK-TECH, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Purdue”), and Rhodes Technologies (“Rhodes”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint against Defendants Abhai, LLC (“Abhai”) and KVK-TECH, Inc. (“KVK”) (collectively, “Defendants”), aver as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code, for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 9,492,389 (“the ’389 patent”); 9,492,391 (“the ’391 patent”); 9,492,392 (“the ’392 patent”); 9,492,393 (“the ’393 patent”) and 9,522,919 (“the ’919 patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in- suit”). This action relates to Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 207493 (“Defendants’ ANDA”) submitted upon information and belief in the name of Defendants to the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). 2. Plaintiffs seek judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’389, ’391, ’392, ’393, and ’919 patents, which are listed in the FDA Approved Drug Products With Case 1:17-cv-00450-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2 Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (“Orange Book”) as covering Purdue’s OxyContin® (oxycodone hydrochloride) (“OxyContin®”), an extended-release pain medication.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil Spill: How Fossil Fuel Funding Corrupts British Cultural Institutions
    Oil Spill: How Fossil Fuel Funding Corrupts British Cultural Institutions By Raquelle Bañuelos B.A., University of South Florida, Tampa, 2019 THESIS Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Museum and Exhibition Studies in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago, 2021 Chicago, Illinois Defense Committee: Dr. Molly Doane, Chair and Advisor Dr. Therese Quinn, Museum and Exhibition Studies Dr. Lucy Mensah, Museum and Exhibition Studies Dedicated to Sarah Rae Grossman “Go spill your beauty on the laughing faces Of happy flowers that bloom a thousand hues, Waiting on tiptoe in the wilding spaces, To drink your wine mixed with sweet drafts of dews.” Claude McKay, “Song of the Moon”, 1922 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………… iv Summary …………………………………………………………………………………… v Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Methodology ………………………………………………………………………… 6 Literature Review …………………………………………………………………… 7 Chapter 1: The Decline of Public Funding for the Arts and Turn to Corporate Support …… 11 Funding From the State ……………………………………………………………... 11 The Benefits of Corporate Sponsorship …………………………………………….. 15 Chapter 2: Greenwashing and the Consequences of Corporate Influence in the Arts ……… 19 What is Greenwashing? ……………………………………………………………... 19 Manipulation of Staffers, Exhibition Material, and Public Programs……………….. 23 Chapter 3: The Fossil Fueled Climate Crisis ……………………………………………….. 30 The Climate Crisis ………………………………………………………………….. 30 Environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Sackler Complaint
    49D13-1905-PL-020498 Filed: 5/21/2019 9:44 AM Clerk Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 13 Marion County, Indiana IN THE CIRCUIT / SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARION COUNTY, INDIANA STATE OF INDIANA, Plaintiff, vs. RICHARD SACKLER, THERESA SACKLER, KATHE SACKLER, JONATHAN SACKLER, MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER, BEVERLY SACKLER, DAVID SACKLER, and ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT, Defendants. COMPLAINT TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 PARTIES ...................................................................................................................................... 11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................... 14 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS.................................................... 15 I. The Sackler Defendants, Through Purdue, Changed the Medical Consensus by Working Every Channel to Reach Prescribers and Indiana Patients. ................................................................................................................. 15 A. Purdue regularly met face-to-face with prescribers to promote its opioid drugs. ............................................................................................. 16 B. Purdue co-opted and exploited seemingly-independent channels to reach prescribers. ...................................................................................... 19 II. From Their Position of Control, the Sackler Defendants
    [Show full text]
  • Signatory Companies
    PhRMA Direct to Consumer Advertising Principles Signatory Companies In October 2018, the PhRMA BoArd of Directors Adopted meAsures to enhAnce the PhRMA Guiding Principles on Direct to Consumer Advertisements About Prescription Medicines. The revised, voluntAry Principles become effective on April 15, 2019. The revised, voluntAry Principles include A new guiding principle stAting thAt “[A]ll DTC television Advertising thAt identifies A prescription medicine by nAme should include direction as to where patients can find information about the cost of the medicine, such as a company- developed website, including the list price And Average, estimAted or typicAl pAtient out-of- pockets costs, or other context About the potentiAl cost of the medicine.” The Principles Also stAte thAt PhRMA will identify on its website All compAnies thAt voluntArily And independently commit to Abide by the Principles And will identify compAnies thAt complete, At the AppropriAte time, AnnuAl certificAtions thAt they hAve policies And procedures in plAce to foster compliAnce with the Principles. The following is A list of All signAtory compAnies who hAve Announced thAt they intend to Abide by the Principles: AbbVie GlAxoSmithKline Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Incyte CorporAtion Alkermes plc. Ipsen BiophArmAceuticAls, Inc. Allergan plc Johnson & Johnson Amgen Inc. Lundbeck Inc. Astellas Americas Merck & Co., Inc. AstrAZenecA PhArmAceuticAls LP NovArtis PhArmAceuticAls CorporAtion Bayer CorporAtion Novo Nordisk Inc. Biogen OtsukA AmericA PhArmAceuticAl, Inc. (OAPI) BioMArin PhArmAceuticAl Inc. Pfizer Inc Boehringer Ingelheim PharmAceuticAls, Inc. Purdue PhArmA L.P. Bristol-Myers Squibb CompAny Sanofi Celgene CorporAtion Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. Daiichi SAnkyo, Inc. TakedA PhArmAceuticAls USA, Inc. EisAi Inc. TevA PhArmAceuticAls Eli Lilly And CompAny UCB EMD Serono .
    [Show full text]
  • How Purdue Opioid Win Could Bolster J&J in Okla. Trial
    How Purdue Opioid Win Could Bolster J&J In Okla. Trial By Cameron Turner Purdue Pharma LP, the manufacturer of OxyContin, currently embroiled in opioid litigation around the country, scored a major victory recently, as District Judge James Hill in Burleigh County, North Dakota, dismissed that state’s action against the opioid defendant. North Dakota’s complaint against Purdue Pharma alleged consumer fraud and public nuisance. Purdue Pharma argued that North Dakota’s claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and the approval process outlined by the act for Purdue Pharma’s packaging and labeling of its opioid products. Judge Hill agreed, concluding that “the marketing practices of Purdue that the State claims are improper … were consistent with the FDA-approved product labeling.”[1] Cameron Turner The court went on to find that there was “’clear evidence’ that the FDA would not have approved changes to Purdue’s labels to comport with the State’s claims.”[2] As to the consumer fraud claims, the court held that North Dakota was obligated to plead causation that the damages it sought based on the alleged consumer fraud were caused directly by Purdue Pharma’s advertising practices.[3] Instead, the court held that the state’s claims amounted to a “fraud-on-the market” theory that was attenuated at best, given the number of intervening causes and the availability of other lawful and unlawful opioids.[4] Finally, the court refused to extend North Dakota’s public nuisance statute to cases involving the sale of goods under the facts presented by the state.[5] Purdue Pharma’s motion to dismiss was treated as a motion for summary judgment because of the evidence submitted by the parties in their briefs.[6] The state has indicated it will appeal the court’s decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Genome-Wide Association for Major Depression Through Age at Onset Stratification Major Depressive Disorder Working Group Of
    King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.05.010 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Power, R., Tansey, K., Buttenschøn, H. N., Cohen-Woods, S., Bigdeli, T., Psychiatric Genomics Consortium MDD Working Group, Hall, L. S., Kutalik, Z., Hong Lee, S., Ripke, S., Steinberg, S., Teumer, A., Viktorin, A., Wray, N. R., Baune, B. T., Boomsma, D. I., Børglum, A. D., Byrne, E. M., Castelao, E., ... GERAD1 Consortium: (2017). Genome-wide Association for Major Depression Through Age at Onset Stratification. Biological psychiatry , 81(4), 325-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.05.010 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.
    [Show full text]
  • AG Balderas Files Lawsuit Against Purdue Pharma's Sackler Family for Fueling Opioid Crisis
    For Immediate Release: September 10, 2019 Contact: Matt Baca (505) 270-748 AG Balderas Files Lawsuit Against Purdue Pharma's Sackler Family for Fueling Opioid Crisis Albuquerque, NM---Today, Attorney General Balderas took yet another step in holding accountable those responsible for New Mexico's opioid epidemic. In a lawsuit filed today, Attorney General Balderas brought action against the Sackler family for masterminding illegal and deceptive practices which caused millions of pills to come flooding into New Mexico. These eight members of the billionaire Sackler Family have owned and controlled Purdue for decades. Until recently, the Sacklers controlled a majority of the seats on the company's board and used the company to execute illegal and deadly schemes which helped lead New Mexico and the rest of the nation into the epidemic we are currently facing, all the while paying themselves billions. "The Sacklers are perhaps the most deadly drug dealers in the world. Because of their illegal actions, New Mexico faces some of the highest opioid related death numbers in the nation, and we have whole communities here in New Mexico which will never be the same again,” said Attorney General Balderas. "Today I am seeking to hold them accountable and to help end New Mexico's crisis and avoid more lives being lost." The Sacklers and Purdue designed their operations to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, state and federal regulators, and many doctors. They wrote the book on how to market narcotics directly to doctors and to the public-- convincing everyone through a decades-long misinformation campaign that pain was being under-treated, and that chronic, long-lasting pain of all sorts should be aggressively treated with their powerful opioid, oxycontin.
    [Show full text]