DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Draft of Complaint 11.20.19 (01007424-1).DOCX

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Case: 1:19-op-46042-DAP Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/19 1 of 214. PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION ) MDL 2804 OPIATE LITIGATION ) ) Case No. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) Judge Dan Aaron Polster THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ) CITY OF CHICAGO, SCHOOL DISTRICT ) NO. 299 (“CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS”), ) on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, ) ) v. ) ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CEPHALON, INC., TEVA ) PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., ) TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ) ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, ENDO ) HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., ENDO ) PHARMACEUTICALS INC., JANSSEN ) PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ORTH- ) MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, ) INC., n/k/a/ JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, ) INC., n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, ) INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., INSYS ) THERAPEUTICS, INC., MALLINCKRODT, ) PLC, MALLINCKRODT LLC, ALLERGAN ) PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC, WATSON ) PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, ) ) INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., ) ACTAVIS LLC, ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. ) f/k/a/ WATSON PHARMA, INC., ) AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, ) CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., McKESSON ) CORPORATION, CVS HEALTH ) CORPORATION, WALGREENS BOOTS ) ALLIANCE, INC., A/K/A WALGREEN CO., ) and WALMART INC., F/K/A WAL-MART ) STORES, INC., ) Defendants. ) Case: 1:19-op-46042-DAP Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/19 2 of 214. PageID #: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION. ............................................................................................................. 1 II. PARTIES. ......................................................................................................................... 15 A. Plaintiff. ................................................................................................................ 15 B. “Manufacturing Defendants.” ............................................................................... 17 C. “Distributor Defendants.” ..................................................................................... 19 1. “National Retail Pharmacies” ................................................................... 19 D. Unnamed Co-Conspirators.................................................................................... 20 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. ...................................................................................... 22 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. .......................................................................................... 23 A. Prescription Opioids.............................................................................................. 23 B. Over the Course of More Than Two Decades, the Manufacturing Defendants Misled the Public Regarding the Dangers of Opioid Addiction and the Efficacy of Opioids for Long-Term Use, Causing Sales and Overdose Rates to Soar............ 26 1. Background on Opioid Overprescribing. .................................................. 26 2. The Fraudulent Sales Practices. ................................................................ 31 3. The Manufacturing Defendants Funded Front Organizations that Published and Disseminated False and Misleading Marketing Materials. 31 4. The Manufacturing Defendants Paid Key Opinion Leaders and Sponsored Speakers’ Bureaus to Disseminate False and Misleading Messaging. ..... 50 5. Senate Investigations of the Manufacturing Defendants. ......................... 53 6. The Devastating Impact of the Manufacturing Defendants’ Propaganda Campaign. ................................................................................................. 56 C. The Manufacturing Defendants’ and Co-Conspirators’ Specific Unlawful Practices that Targeted Illinois and Chicago-area Prescribers. ............................. 57 1. The Purdue Co-Conspirators..................................................................... 57 a) Purdue Falsely Marketed Extended-Release Drugs as Safer and More Effective than Regular-Release Drugs. ............................... 58 Case: 1:19-op-46042-DAP Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/19 3 of 214. PageID #: 3 b) Purdue Falsely Marketed Low Addiction Risk to Wide Swaths of Physicians. .................................................................................... 62 c) Purdue Funded Publications and Presentations with False and Misleading Messaging. ................................................................. 65 d) The Guilty Pleas. ........................................................................... 66 e) The Sacklers Establish Rhodes as a “Landing Pad” from Purdue. 69 f) Purdue Failed to Monitor and Report Suspicious Sales as Required. ....................................................................................................... 71 2. The Sackler Family Co-Conspirators........................................................ 71 a) The Individual Sacklers Direct and Control Purdue. .................... 71 b) The Sacklers Oversee and Direct Purdue’s Unlawful Conduct. ... 74 c) Sacklers Were Aware of the Abuse Potential of OxyContin Since at Least 1996. ................................................................................ 75 d) The Sacklers’ Full Understanding Of Opioid Abuse And Addiction Risk is Underscored By Their Pursuit of Business Opportunities In Medications That Treat Addiction Their Own Opioids Caused. .. 78 e) The Sacklers Continued to Oversee Purdue’s Wrongdoing Even After Repeated Warnings and Fines. ............................................ 80 3. The Johnson & Johnson Defendants. ........................................................ 89 a) Janssen .......................................................................................... 90 b) The FDA Warned Janssen Regarding Its False Messaging. ......... 91 c) The Johnson & Johnson Defendants Funded False Publications and Presentations. ................................................................................ 94 d) The Johnson & Johnson Defendants Failed to Monitor and Report Suspicious Sales as Required by Federal Law. ............................. 98 e) In addition to marketing its own opioids, Johnson & Johnson owned two companies that grew, imported, and processed the raw materials to make opioids and sold them to many of the other Manufacturing Defendants, including Purdue. ............................. 99 4. Endo. ....................................................................................................... 101 a) Endo Falsely Marketed Opana ER as Crush Resistant. .............. 102 ii Case: 1:19-op-46042-DAP Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/19 4 of 214. PageID #: 4 b) New York’s Investigation Found Endo Falsely Marketed Opana ER. .............................................................................................. 104 c) Endo Funded False Publications and Presentations. ................... 107 d) FDA Requested Endo Withdraw Opana ER Due to the Public Health Consequences of Abuse. ................................................. 109 e) Endo Failed to Monitor and Report Suspicious Sales as Required. ..................................................................................................... 110 5. Cephalon. ................................................................................................ 111 a) Cephalon Falsely and Aggressively Marketed Cancer Drug Actiq to Non-Cancer Treating Physicians. ........................................... 113 b) Government Investigations Found Cephalon Falsely Marketed Actiq for Off-Label Uses. ........................................................... 115 c) Cephalon Falsely and Aggressively Marketed Cancer Drug Fentora to Non-Cancer Treating Physicians. ........................................... 116 d) The FDA Warned Cephalon Regarding its False and Off-Label Marketing of Fentora. ................................................................. 117 e) Cephalon Funded False Publications and Presentations. ............ 119 f) Cephalon Failed to Monitor and Report Suspicious Sales as Required. ..................................................................................... 128 6. Insys ........................................................................................................ 128 a) Federal Investigation of Insys. .................................................... 131 b) The Indictment of Insys Executives and the Arrest of Its Founder. ..................................................................................................... 131 c) Insys Targeted Non-Cancer Treating Physicians and Funded False Publications and Presentations. ................................................... 133 d) Insys Failed to Monitor and Report Suspicious Sales as Required. ..................................................................................................... 138 7. Mallinckrodt ............................................................................................ 138 a) Mallinckrodt Funded False Publications and Presentations. ...... 140 b) The DEA Investigates Suspicious Orders. .................................. 142 iii Case: 1:19-op-46042-DAP Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/19 5 of 214. PageID #: 5 c) Mallinckrodt Failed to Monitor and Report Suspicious Sales as Required. ..................................................................................... 144 8. Actavis. ................................................................................................... 144 a) The FDA Issued a Warning Letter to Actavis Concerning Extensive False and Misleading Claims in Kadian Marketing Materials. ...................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • 83Rd National Headliner Awards Winners

    83Rd National Headliner Awards Winners

    83rd National Headliner Awards winners The 83rd National Headliner Award winners were announced today honoring the best journalism in newspapers, photography, radio, television and online. The awards were founded in 1934 by the Press Club of Atlantic City. The annual contest is one of the oldest and largest in the country that recognizes journalistic merit in the communications industry. Here is a list of this year's winners beginning with the Best of Show in each category: Best of show: Newspapers “Painkiller Profiteers” Eric Eyre Charleston Gazette-Mail, Charleston, W. Va. Best of show: Photography “An Assassination” Burhan Ozbilici Associated Press, New York, N.Y. Best of show: Online The Panama Papers, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a project of the Center for Public Integrity Best of show: Radio “Texas Standard: Out of the Blue: 50 Years After the UT Tower Shooting” Texas Standard staff Texas Standard, Austin, Texas Best of show: TV First place “Cosecha de Miseria (Harvest of Misery) & The Source” Staff of weather.com and Telemundo Network weather.com and Telemundo Network, New York, N.Y. DAILY NEWSPAPERS AND NEWS SYNDICATES Spot News in daily newspapers, all sizes First Place “Dallas Police Shootings” The Dallas Morning News Staff Dallas, Texas Second Place “Oakland's Ghost Ship warehouse fire” East Bay Times staff East Bay Times, San Jose, California Third Place “The Shooting Death of Philando Castile” Star Tribune staff Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota Local news beat coverage or continuing story by an individual or team First Place “The Pulse Shooting” Orlando Sentinel staff Orlando Sentinel, Orlando, Fla.
  • XCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C

    XCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C

    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) (X) ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 ( ) TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File Number 0-19034 REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) New York 13-3444607 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer Identification No) incorporation or organization) 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, New York 10591-6707 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code) (914) 347-7000 (Registrant's telephone number, including area code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None (Title of Class) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock - par value $.001 per share (Title of Class) Preferred Share Purchase Rights expiring October 18, 2006 (Title of Class) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes /X/ No Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (ss. 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
  • The Pulitzer Prizes 2020 Winne

    The Pulitzer Prizes 2020 Winne

    WINNERS AND FINALISTS 1917 TO PRESENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Excerpts from the Plan of Award ..............................................................2 PULITZER PRIZES IN JOURNALISM Public Service ...........................................................................................6 Reporting ...............................................................................................24 Local Reporting .....................................................................................27 Local Reporting, Edition Time ..............................................................32 Local General or Spot News Reporting ..................................................33 General News Reporting ........................................................................36 Spot News Reporting ............................................................................38 Breaking News Reporting .....................................................................39 Local Reporting, No Edition Time .......................................................45 Local Investigative or Specialized Reporting .........................................47 Investigative Reporting ..........................................................................50 Explanatory Journalism .........................................................................61 Explanatory Reporting ...........................................................................64 Specialized Reporting .............................................................................70
  • Virginia: in the Circuit Court of Pittsylvania County

    Virginia: in the Circuit Court of Pittsylvania County

    VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P.; ABBOTT LABORATORIES; ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PAR Case No. CL18 - __________ PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; TEVA Jury Trial Demanded PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; BARR LABORATORIES, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; ACTAVIS, LLC; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; KVK-TECH, INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; IMPAX LABORATORIES, LLC; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK, LLC; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC.; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; HENRY SCHEIN, INC.; GENERAL INJECTABLES & VACCINES, INC.; INSOURCE, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CVS TN DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN CO.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC; CAREMARK RX, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; OPTUM, INC.; OPTUMRX, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, by and through the undersigned attorneys, (hereinafter “Plaintiff,” “Pittsylvania
  • Surescripts, Llc As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners in No

    Surescripts, Llc As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners in No

    Nos. 19-508 and 19-825 In the Supreme Court of the United States ———————————— AMG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. ———————————— FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. CREDIT BUREAU CENTER, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. ———————————— ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH AND NINTH CIRCUITS ———————————— BRIEF OF SURESCRIPTS, LLC AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS IN NO. 19-508 AND RESPONDENTS IN NO. 19-825 ———————————— ALFRED C. PFEIFFER, JR. ROMAN MARTINEZ LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Counsel of Record 505 Montgomery Street AMANDA P. REEVES Suite 2000 ALLYSON M. MALTAS San Francisco, CA 94111 DOUGLAS C. TIFFT BLAKE E. STAFFORD JAMES A. TOMBERLIN* LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 637-2200 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae Surescripts, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................3 ARGUMENT ...............................................................5 I. The FTC Has Increasingly Wielded Section 13(b) To Obtain Monetary Relief In Antitrust Cases ................................................5 II. The FTC’s Antitrust Authority Confirms That Section 13(b) Does Not Authorize Monetary Relief ..................................................22 CONCLUSION ..........................................................32 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019) .......................................... 13 Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (2015) .............................................. 23 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................. 26 In re Cardinal Health, Inc., No. 101-0006, 2015 WL 1849040 (F.T.C. Apr. 17, 2015) ........................ 19, 20, 28, 30 Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S.
  • Complaint, “Chronic Pain” Means Non-Cancer Pain Lasting Three Months Or Longer

    Complaint, “Chronic Pain” Means Non-Cancer Pain Lasting Three Months Or Longer

    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................8 III. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................8 A. Plaintiff ....................................................................................................................8 B. Defendants ...............................................................................................................9 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................14 A. Defendants Used Multiple Avenues To Disseminate Their False And Deceptive Statements About Opioids. ...................................................................14 1. Defendants spread and continue to spread their false and deceptive statements through direct marketing of their branded opioids. .......................................................................................................15 2. Defendants used a diverse group of seemingly independent third parties to spread false and deceptive statements about the risks and benefits of opioids.................................................................17 a. Key Opinion Leaders (“KOLs”) ....................................................19 (1) Russell Portenoy ................................................................20
  • ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)

    ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)

    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of the earliest event reported): January 16, 2015 ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Ireland 001-36326 Not Applicable (State or other jurisdiction of (Commission (I.R.S Employer incorporation or organization) File Number) Identification No.) Minerva House, Simmonscourt Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland Not Applicable (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code 011-353-1-268-2000 Not Applicable Former name or former address, if changed since last report Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: x Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) ¨ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) ¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) ¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Item 8.01 Other Events. This Current Report on Form 8-K is being filed pursuant to a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the proposed merger (the “Merger”) between Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Auxilium”) and Avalon Merger Sub Inc. (“Merger Sub”) pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 17, 2014 (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among Auxilium, Endo International plc (“Endo”), Endo U.S.
  • US Pharma's Business Model

    US Pharma's Business Model

    INNOVATION-FUELLED, SUSTAINABLE, INCLUSIVE GROWTH Working Paper US Pharma’s Business Model: Why It Is Broken, and How It Can Be Fixed William Lazonick Matt Hopkins Ken Jacobson Mustafa Erdem Sakinç Öner Tulum The Academic-Industry Research Network 13/2017 May This project has received funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation action under grant agreement No 649186 US Pharma’s Business Model: Why It Is Broken, and How It Can Be Fixed William Lazonick Matt Hopkins Ken Jacobson Mustafa Erdem Sakinç Öner Tulum The Academic-Industry Research Network (www.theAIRnet.org) Revised, May 22, 2017 Chapter for inclusion in David Tyfield, Rebecca Lave, Samuel Randalls, and Charles Thorpe, eds., The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science The contents of this chapter are drawn from two contributions by the Academic- Industry Research Network to the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines: http://www.unsgaccessmeds.org/list-of-contribution/ William Lazonick is Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Lowell; Visiting Professor, University of Ljubljana; Professeur Associé, Institut Mines- Télécom; and President, The Academic-Industry Research Network (theAIRnet); Matt Hopkins, Ken Jacobson, Mustafa Erdem Sakinç, and Öner Tulum are researchers at theAIRnet. Jacobson is also theAIRnet communications director. Sakinç has just completed a PhD in economics at the University of Bordeaux. Tulum is a PhD student at the University of Ljubljana. Funding for this research came from the Institute for New Economic Thinking (Collective and Cumulative Careers project), the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No.
  • Illinois Municipalities V. Purdue Pharma Et Al – Complaint [RFF]

    Illinois Municipalities V. Purdue Pharma Et Al – Complaint [RFF]

    FILED 12-Person Jury 7/19/2018 7:00 AM DOROTHY BROWN CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY, IL 2018CH09020 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION CITY OF HARVEY, VILLAGE OF BROADVIEW, Case No. 2018CH09020 VILLAGE OF CHICAGO RIDGE, VILLAGE OF DOLTON, VILLAGE OF HOFFMAN ESTATES, VILLAGE OF MAYWOOD, VILLAGE OF MERRIONETTE PARK, VILLAGE OF NORTH RIVERSIDE, VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK, CITY OF PEORIA, VILLAGE OF POSEN, VILLAGE OF RIVER GROVE, VILLAGE OF STONE PARK, and ORLAND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Plaintiffs, FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 7:00 AM 2018CH09020 v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., PURDUE PHARMA, INC., PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC., RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS, CEPHALON, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACUETICALS, INC., JANSSEN PHARMAEUTICA, INC., INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC., NORMACO, INC., ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ALLERGAN PLC, ACTAVIS PLC, WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., ACTAVIS LLC, MALLINCKRODT PLC, MALLINCKRODT LLC, AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., MCKESSON CORPORATION, PAUL MADISON, WILLIAM MCMAHON, and JOSEPH GIACCHINO, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs City of Harvey, Village of Broadview, Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates, Village of Maywood, Village of Merrionette Park, Village 1 of North Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland Fire Protection District bring this Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial to obtain redress in the form of monetary and injunctive relief from Defendants for their role in the opioid epidemic that has caused widespread harm and injuries to Plaintiffs’ communities.
  • The Top 15 Generic Drugmakers of 2016 by Eric Sagonowsky, Eric Palmer, Angus Liu

    The Top 15 Generic Drugmakers of 2016 by Eric Sagonowsky, Eric Palmer, Angus Liu

    The top 15 generic drugmakers of 2016 by Eric Sagonowsky, Eric Palmer, Angus Liu Branded drugmakers weren’t the only ones working through a tumultuous 2016. Generics companies faced pricing pressure, too. And while branded companies suffer pricing pain on costly cutting-edge therapies, generics outfits feel the pinch with already-thin margins, making pressure all the more agonizing. How is the industry responding? By consolidating and hoping to save money, for one. Take a look at FiercePharma’s 2014 ranking, and it’s clear that some companies have made leaps too big to depend on organic growth alone. Take Teva, which topped the 2016 list as it did in 2014. It wrapped up the biggest M&A move in recent history for the generics industry, swallowing Allergan’s unbranded offerings for $40.5 billion in August. The massive move will continue to reverberate in the generics industry for years to come. Top drugmakers by 2016 generics revenue in USD billions Teva Pharmaceutical Industries 9.85 Mylan 9.43 Novartis 9 Pfizer 4.57 Allergan 4.5 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries 3.61 Fresenius 2.8 Endo International 2.57 Lupin 2.49 Sanofi 2.05 Aspen Pharmacare 2 Aurobindo Pharma 1.86 Dr. Reddy's Laboratories 1.78 Cipla 1.61 Apotex 1.6 Source: Evaluate, May 2017 Get the data Sales data for Sun Pharma, Fresenius, Lupin, Aspen Pharmacare, Aurobindo, Cipla, and Apotex are Evaluate estimates. Dr. Reddy’s data provided from company filing. Behind Teva came Mylan, which also completed a big deal last year, a $7.2 billion buyout of Sweden’s Meda.
  • Non-Merger Civil Enforcement: an Overview of Recent DOJ and FTC Federal Court Litigation

    Non-Merger Civil Enforcement: an Overview of Recent DOJ and FTC Federal Court Litigation

    Antitrust , Vol. 32, No. 1, Fall 201 7. © 2017 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Non-Merger Civil Enforcement: An Overview of Recent DOJ and FTC Federal Court Litigation BY SONIA KUESTER PFAFFENROTH ECENT YEARS HAVE SEEN THE As a result, there are now a significant number of career attor - Department of Justice and the Federal Trade neys and economists with recent federal trial court experience, Commission appearing with regularity in fed - which they will bring to future cases at the investigative phase eral district court, with the agencies demon - with an eye towards potential litigation. strating a willingness to litigate in both the Rmerger and non-merger context and with a number of high- DOJ Litigation profile trials now in the rearview mirror. Because the DOJ has no administrative adjudicative process, While the majority of civil conduct enforcement actions its civil enforcement cases, whether they are settlements or continue to be filed concurrently with settlements—which contested litigation, are filed directly in federal district court. provide significant insight into the government’s theories— In recent years, the DOJ has litigated a number of cases alleg - both agencies have seen an uptick in the number of contest - ing Section 1 violations and one case alleging a Section 2 vio - ed cases filed in federal district court since the beginning of lation.
  • Fighting Cyber-Crime After United States V. Jones Danielle K

    Fighting Cyber-Crime After United States V. Jones Danielle K

    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship Summer 2013 Fighting Cyber-Crime After United States v. Jones Danielle K. Citron Boston University School of Law David Gray University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Liz Rinehart University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Danielle K. Citron, David Gray & Liz Rinehart, Fighting Cyber-Crime After United States v. Jones, 103 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 745 (2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/625 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fighting Cyber-Crime After United States v. Jones David C. Gray Danielle Keats Citron Liz Clark Rinehard No. 2013 - 49 This paper can be downloaded free of charge at: The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection http://ssrn.com/abstract=2302861 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 103 | Issue 3 Article 4 Summer 2013 Fighting Cybercrime After United States v. Jones David Gray Danielle Keats Citron Liz Clark Rinehart Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation David Gray, Danielle Keats Citron, and Liz Clark Rinehart, Fighting Cybercrime After United States v.