Amgen 2007 Annual Report Download - page 170

AMGEN INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
and requests the same relief as in the state shareholder derivative complaints filed in Superior Court. The case
has been stayed for all purposes until thirty days after a final ruling on the motion to dismiss by the California
Central District Court in the In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation action.
On September 21, 2007, the shareholder derivative lawsuit of Rosenblum v. Sharer, et al. was filed in the
California Central District Court. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wast-
ed corporate assets and were unjustly enriched. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented results of Aranesp®clinical studies, marketed both Aranesp®and EPOGEN®for off-label uses
and that these actions or inactions as well as the Amgen market strategy caused damage to the Company resulting
in several inquiries, investigations and lawsuits that are costly to defend. The complaint also alleges insider trad-
ing by the defendants. The plaintiffs seek treble damages based on various causes of action, reformed corporate
governance, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensa-
tion, and legal costs. The case has been stayed for all purposes until thirty days after a final ruling on the motion
to dismiss by the California Central District Court in the In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation action.
ERISA Litigation
On August 20, 2007, the ERISA class action lawsuit of Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al. was filed against Amgen
and certain members of its Board of Directors in the California Central District Court. Plaintiffs claim that Am-
gen and various Board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and former
employees who participated in the Amgen Retirement and Savings Manufacturing Plan and the Amgen Savings
Plan of the alleged off-label promotion of both Aranesp®and EPOGEN®while a number of studies allegedly
demonstrated safety concerns in patients using ESAs. On February 4, 2008, the California Central District Court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff Harris, who had filed claims against Amgen Inc. The
claims alleged by the second plaintiff, Ramos, were also dismissed but the court granted the plaintiff leave to
amend his complaint.
Third-party Payors Litigation
On June 5, 2007 the United Food & Commercial Workers Central Pennsylvania and Regional Health & Wel-
fare Fund v. Amgen Inc., on June 7, 2007 the Vista Healthplan Inc. v. Amgen Inc., on June 14, 2007, the Painters
District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund v. Amgen. Inc., on August 8, 2007, Ironworkers v. Amgen Inc.,
on August 15, 2007 Watters (State of Michigan) v. Amgen Inc. and August 28, 2007, Sheet Metal v. Amgen Inc
putative class action lawsuits were filed by third-party payors against Amgen in the California Central District
Court. In each action, the plaintiff alleges that Amgen marketed its anemia medicines, EPOGEN®and Aranesp®,
for “off-label” uses, or uses that are not approved by the FDA, and claims that, as a result, the plaintiff paid for
unwarranted prescriptions. Specifically, the complaints allege that Amgen promoted EPOGEN®and Aranesp®
for: treating cancer patients who are not on chemotherapy; treating quality of life symptoms associated with
anemia, such as fatigue; and reaching Hb targets above the FDA-approved level. Each plaintiff asserts claims
under California’s consumer protection statutes and for breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment and
plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals and entities.
On October 29, 2007, in the United Food & Commercial Workers Central Pennsylvania and Regional
Health & Welfare Fund v. Amgen Inc., the Vista Healthplan Inc. v. Amgen Inc., and the Painters District Council
No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund v. Amgen. Inc. third-party payor class actions, a motion to dismiss and a motion
to transfer each of the three cases were heard before California Central District Court. On November 13, 2007,
the United Food & Commercial Workers Central Pennsylvania and Regional Health & Welfare Fund v. Amgen
Inc. case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania, the Vista Healthplan Inc. v.
Amgen Inc. case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the Painters
District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund v. Amgen. Inc. case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. On December 4, 2007, the Watters (State of Michigan) v. Amgen Inc. case was
F-44