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 Eakesley's firm -- has withdrawn his preemption arguments in the Temodar/Intron litigation (as a result of the Wyeth v. Levine decision), but as of the moment, none of the current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. . . .
