Amgen 2009 Annual Report Download - page 166

AMGEN INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Erie v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Chenango
v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Chautauqua v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of
Tompkins v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Wayne v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County
of Monroe v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Washington v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;
County of Herkimer v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Cayuga v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
al.; County of Allegany v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Rensselaer v. Abbott Laboratories,
Inc., et al.; County of Albany v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Cattaraugus v. Abbott Labo-
ratories, Inc., et al.; County of Yates v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Broome v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Warren v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Greene v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Saratoga v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of St. Lawrence v.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Oneida v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Genesee v.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Fulton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Steuben v.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Putnam v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Niagara v.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Jefferson v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Madison
v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Columbia
v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Essex v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Cortland
v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Seneca v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Orleans
v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Duchess v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Ontario
v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Schuyler v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; County of Wyom-
ing v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.; State of California ex rel. Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc. v.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., State of Iowa v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.
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. 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. 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 March 7, 2008, the Track II defendants reached a tentative class settlement of the MDL Proceeding, which
was subsequently amended on April 3, 2008. The tentative Track II settlement relates to claims against numerous
defendants, including Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Amgen Inc., Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Hoechst Marion
Roussel, Inc., Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Baxter International Inc., Bayer Corporation, Dey, Inc., Fujisawa
Healthcare, Inc., Fujisawa USA, Inc., Immunex Corporation, Pharmacia Corporation, Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC
(f/k/a Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc.), Sicor, Inc., Gensia, Inc., Gensia Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Pharma-
ceuticals, Inc. and ZLB Behring, L.L.C. A hearing before the Massachusetts District Court was held on April 9,
2008 and on July 2, 2008, the Massachusetts District Court issued an order of preliminary approval of the Track
II defendants’ class settlement and scheduled a fairness hearing for December 16, 2008. At that hearing, the
Massachusetts District Court was not satisfied with several notice requirements the plaintiffs were to have com-
pleted prior to the hearing and rescheduled the fairness hearing for April 27, 2009.
At the April 27, 2009, fairness hearing, the Massachusetts District Court was still not satisfied with several
notice requirements and refused to grant final approval of the settlement agreement until those deficiencies were
satisfied. The Massachusetts District Court held a May 28, 2009 status conference where mediation with respect
to all non-settling MDL Proceeding cases was discussed. Final approval hearing of the Track II settlement before
the Massachusetts District Court was scheduled for October 21, 2009. However, plaintiffs filed for an extension
of the final approval hearing due to continued deficiencies in executing notices.
For the state and local governmental entities in the MDL Proceeding, on July 30, 2008, the Massachusetts
District Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Amgen’s renewed Motion to Dismiss the First
F-46