It is puzzling that Mr. Rooney -- of Mr. Eakesley's firm -- has withdrawn his preemption arguments in the Temodar/Intron litigation (as a result of the Wyeth v. Levine decision), but as of the moment, none of the current (Vytorin/ENHANCE-related) case-files (most-notably, the Manson case) show a similar letter from Lowenstein, Sandler. Odd. In any event, here is an image of that Temodar/Intron letter:
"What was this older (2006-era) piece of litigation all about?", you may ask. [This is from a time prior to my covering Schering-Plough's travails, so I haven't mentioned it before now. 'Tis high-time, sez me!] Well, it involves allegedly "off-label" promotion of various Schering-Plough drugs -- these claims were at the heart of a $435 million criminal consent decree in Massachusetts:
. . . .In December 2006, the first of the ten cases consolidated in this Court was filed alleging that Schering engaged in an illegal and fraudulent marketing campaign to inflate sales of Schering’s Intron Franchise Drugs (which include Intron-A, PEG-Intron, and Rebetol when sold individually or in combination), Temodar, Eulexin, Integrilin, and Fareston (collectively, the “Subject Drugs”). Schering perpetrated this scheme through a variety of improper off-label marketing tactics, which included paying bribes and illegal kickbacks to doctors. . . .
. . . .In August 2006, the Government’s investigation culminated in a guilty plea by Schering Sales for making false statements to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conceal Schering’s vast off-label marketing campaign. Also, Schering settled civil claims that it defrauded Government agencies that purchase prescription medication, such as Medicare and Medicaid, by paying kickbacks to doctors and engaging in other proscribed methods off-label marketing. As Schering is well-aware, the facts revealed from these investigations form the backbone of Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint. . . .
4 comments:
Gotta wonder, with all these lawsuits pending...did Merck do an appropriate DD? I guess-yes. Hence, the quick deal by Fred et al.
Ding!
I think that hits the nail on the head.
To be fair, Merck already knew a fair bit about Schering-Plough's warts -- as SGP's venture partner, on several drugs. . . .
Namaste
I actually wonder whether the Merck/Schering "take-under" deal structure -- with almost $2 billion in cash to be paid out to Wellington, for example -- isn't, in part, an implied "settlement" payment, for arguable securities fraud (non-timely disclosure of pivotal trial results, while conducting a public offering at $27.50) in the 2007-2008 timeframes.
Each large holder (that bought in the offering, or after) will get almost half of its original investment returned, in cash -- to deploy eslewhere -- and get about half a Schmerck share, to boot.
Curious, no?
we'll likely never know how much pressure the institutions were exerting on CEO Hassan to make them whole for those crashing 2008 stock-prices due to ENHANCE delays, and then SEAS releases.
Namaste
Lowenstein Sandler recinded offers to three of its newest 18 associates, according to this, from today's National Law Journal article:
"March 24, 2009
. . . .A handful of law firms and legal departments have rescinded offers to incoming associates, forcing those 3Ls to restart their job searches. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps of San Diego has confirmed that it rescinded offers to all of its incoming associate class and cancelled its 2009 summer associate program. Lowenstein Sandler of Roseland, N.J., confirmed that it revoked the job offers of three of its 18 incoming associates. Smaller firms Irell & Manella; Sughrue Mion; and Morris, Manning & Martin reportedly have rescinded offers to at least a portion of their incoming associates. . . ."
Post a Comment