As The April 17 Virginia Trial Date In The Zetia® "Pay To Delay" Class Action Draws Closer, We Are Gratified To See This "Press Ruling"...

We intend to cover this class action as a close out of our five or so years of watching "Fast Fred" Hassan game the US drug distribution regulatory system -- for billions, and walk away with over $235 million in personal holdings, by doing so -- while at the helm of legacy Schering-Plough (now a part of Merck). It is also notable that Martin Shkreli (now banned for life from pharma, post five years of prison) claims that most of what he did to the US Daraprim^® market, and supply availability, he "learned" watching Fred Hassan.

So it is good to know that the able USDC Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller, in Virginia, will not impose any gag orders, despite requests for the same from Merck and Glenmark. We will indeed have much more here, in a few weeks -- once the trial gets underway, in earnest, But here's that bit, from his order (there are a host of other rulings contained in that 12 page order, as well -- but this is the one I was most keenly focused on seeing resolved):

. . .This motion seeks to bar Plaintiffs' counsel from speaking to the media if it would result in "unfair prejudice to Defendants."

The motion is DENIED.

Statements to the media are not evidence and not a proper subject for a motion in limine. Nevertheless, all counsel are reminded of the ethical obligations imposed by Local Civil Rule 83.1(1) (incorporating section II of part 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia) and the Rules of Professional Responsibility of their jurisdictions of licensure. . . .

[A later] motion sought to exclude reference to five charts accompanying expert testimony on the impact of generic entry. The motion is DENIED. The evidence cited, which summarizes the impact on brand sales and pricing of generic entry across pharmaceutical markets, is relevant background necessary for the jury's understanding of issues in the case. The fact that the information applies to generic pharmaceuticals in general, and not to ezetimibe specifically, does not render it unfairly prejudicial or confusing. . . .

That local Virginia rule 83.1(1) cautions that "a lawyer should not make any extrajudicial statement that may prejudice an adjudicative proceeding. . . ." But it obviously cannot trample the first amendment rights of non-parties to any given piece of litigation. Even multi-billion dollar litigation. That much is certain.

Do stay tuned -- out, grinning with the women's national March Madness championship on the line, later -- go get it, Caitlin!

नमस्ते