Amgen 2007 Annual Report Download - page 160

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 160 of the 2007 Amgen annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 180

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 161
  • 162
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168
  • 169
  • 170
  • 171
  • 172
  • 173
  • 174
  • 175
  • 176
  • 177
  • 178
  • 179
  • 180

AMGEN INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
In the MDL Proceeding, the Massachusetts District Court has set various deadlines relating to motions to
dismiss the complaints, discovery, class certification, summary judgment and other pre-trial issues. For the pri-
vate class action cases, the Massachusetts District Court has divided the defendant companies into a Track I
group and a Track II group. The class certification hearing for the Track I group was held on February 10, 2004.
On January 30, 2006, the Massachusetts District Court certified three classes (one nationwide class and two
Massachusetts-only classes) with respect to the Track I group. Both Amgen and Immunex are in the Track II
group. On March 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended master consolidated complaint, which did not include
their motion for class certification as to the Track II group. The Massachusetts District Court held a hearing on
May 22, 2006, for defendants’ motions to dismiss the California Attorney General (“California AG”) complaint
(State of California ex rel. Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.). Immunex,
and not Amgen, was a defendant in the California AG complaint until Immunex was dismissed from the case on
January 17, 2007, following a settlement agreement entered into between the parties, executed on December 14,
2006. Judge Saris entered the order of dismissal regarding Immunex on January 25, 2007. On September 12,
2006, a hearing before the Massachusetts District Court was held on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as to
the Track II group defendants, which include Amgen and Immunex. On November 6, 2006, the Massachusetts
District Court commenced the Track I trial as to the two Massachusetts-only classes certified. Closing arguments
in that case were held on January 26, 2007. Summary judgment motions were filed in the State of Montana v.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. and State of Nevada v. American Home Products Corp., et al., cases and a hear-
ing on both motions has been scheduled for May 2, 2007 in the Massachusetts District Court. Immunex is the
sole defendant in both the Montana and Nevada cases. On September 24, 2007, State of Montana v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., et al. was remanded to the Montana District Court and State of Nevada v. American Home
Products Corp., et al. was remanded to the Nevada District Court.
Certain AWP cases remain part of the MDL Proceeding, but they are likely to be remanded. These cases
are:
State of Iowa v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. This case was filed against Amgen and Immunex,
along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, on October 9, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa. On October 9, 2007, Immunex was served with the complaint and
on October 25, 2007, Amgen was served with the complaint. On November 20, 2007, this case was removed
to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and was transferred to the MDL
proceeding. On January 18, 2008, a status conference was held. Motions to dismiss are due February 20,
2008.
Certain AWP cases are not a part of the MDL Proceeding. These cases are:
Robert J. Swanston v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., et al. This Arizona state class action was
filed against Amgen and Immunex on December 20, 2002 in the Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court.
The Court set a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to certify a statewide class for May 13, 2005; however, the
Court stayed the entire case on March 10, 2005. The case remains stayed and another status conference is
scheduled for March 17, 2008.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., et al. This case was filed
against Amgen in the Commonwealth Court for Pennsylvania in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on March 10,
2004. On March 10, 2005, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed an amended complaint, adding Im-
munex, and defendants filed Preliminary Objections. A hearing on the Preliminary Objections was held on
June 8, 2005. On July 13, 2005, defendants filed a notice of removal from Commonwealth Court to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Pennsylvania District Court”).
This case was remanded to state court by order dated September 9, 2005. Amgen and Immunex filed an-
swers to the complaint on January 5, 2006. Immunex filed an answer to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
amended complaint on April 6, 2006. On October 11, 2006, this case was removed to the Pennsylvania Dis-
F-34