Amgen 2009 Annual Report Download - page 168

AMGEN INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. On September 1, 2007, the case was remanded to the
state court. The State of New York Litigation Coordinating Panel granted defendants’ motions to coordinate the
Erie, Oswego and Schenectady County cases.
County of Oswego v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. This case was filed against Amgen and Immunex,
along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, on May 9, 2006 in the Supreme Court of New York,
Oswego County. On August 21, 2006, Immunex was served with the complaint and on August 24, 2006, Amgen
was served with the complaint. On October 11, 2006, this case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York. On September 1, 2007, the case was remanded to the state court. The State of
New York Litigation Coordinating Panel granted defendants’ motions to coordinate the Erie, Oswego and Sche-
nectady County cases.
State of Kansas, ex rel Steve Six v. Amgen Inc. and Immunex Corporation. On November 3, 2008, the State
of Kansas filed a complaint against Amgen and Immunex in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas,
Civil Court Division. Approximately forty other pharmaceutical manufacturers were also sued by the state. Plain-
tiff Kansas alleges that the manufacturers misrepresented product pricing information reported to the state by
falsely inflating those prices. A hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss occurred on March 5, 2009, following
which the court denied the motion.
Federal Securities Litigation — In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation
The six federal class action shareholder complaints filed against Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D.
Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton, Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V. Fritzky,
Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr., (the “Federal Defendants”) in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California (the “California Central District Court”) on April 17, 2007 (Kairalla v. Amgen
Inc., et al.), May 1, 2007 (Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al., & Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 11, 2007 (Eldon v.
Amgen Inc., et al.), May 21, 2007 (Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc., et al.) and June 18, 2007 (Public Employees’ Re-
tirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc., et al.) were consolidated by the California Central District
Court into one action captioned In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated complaint was filed with
the California Central District Court on October 2, 2007. The consolidated complaint alleges that Amgen and
these officers and directors made false statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public regarding
Amgen’s prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflating the prices of Amgen’s publicly traded securities and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated
prices. The complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations that, throughout the class period, the Federal
Defendants improperly marketed Aranesp®and EPOGEN®for off-label uses while aware that there were alleged
safety signals with these products. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, legal fees and
other relief deemed proper. The Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 8, 2007. On Febru-
ary 4, 2008, the California Central District Court granted in part, and denied in part, the Federal Defendants’
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Specifically, the California Central District Court grant-
ed the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to individual defendants Fritzky, Omenn, Johnson, Fenton and
McNamee, but denied the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to individual defendants Sharer, Nanula,
Perlmutter and Morrow.
A class certification hearing before the California Central District Court, was held on July 17, 2009 and on
August 12, 2009, the California Central District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On Au-
gust 28, 2009, Amgen filed a petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
(the “9th Circuit”) under Rule 23(f), regarding the Order on Class Certification and the 9th Circuit granted Am-
gen’s appeal on December 11, 2009. Amgen’s brief is due March 29, 2010 and plaintiff’s brief is due April 27,
2010. On January 25, 2010, oral argument was heard on Amgen’s motion to stay the case in the California Cen-
tral District Court which was granted on February 2, 2010.
F-48