Amgen 2009 Annual Report Download - page 170

AMGEN INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
On February 8, 2010, plaintiff Shelly Birch filed another shareholder demand lawsuit in the Los Angeles
Superior Court against the same defendants in the original lawsuit but also adding Board of Directors members
Francois de Carbonnel and Rebecca Henderson. The allegations in the new complaint are nearly identical to
those in the previously filed complaint.
Federal Derivative Litigation
On May 7, 2007, the shareholder derivative lawsuit of Durgin v. Sharer, et al., was filed in the California
Central District Court and named Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, George J. Morrow, Dennis M. Fenton, Brian M.
McNamee, Roger M. Perlmutter, David Baltimore, Gilbert S. Omenn, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck,
Jerry D. Choate, J. Paul Reason, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Leonard D. Schaeffer, Frank C. Herringer, Richard D.
Nanula, Edward V. Fritzky and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr. as defendants. The complaint alleges the same claims
and requests the same relief as in the three state shareholder derivative complaints now consolidated as Larson v.
Sharer, et al. The case has been stayed for all purposes until thirty days after a final ruling on the motion to dis-
miss 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. This lawsuit was brought by the shareholder who previously made a demand on
the Amgen Board on May 14, 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties,
wasted 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 was 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.
Thereafter, on May 1, 2008, plaintiff in Rosenblum v. Sharer, et al., filed an amended complaint which re-
moved Dennis Fenton as a defendant and also eliminated the claims for insider selling by defendants. On July 28,
2008, the California Central District Court heard Amgen and the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to
stay. On July 30, 2008, the California Central District Court granted Amgen and the defendants’ motion to dis-
miss without prejudice and also granted a stay of the case pending resolution of 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 Am-
gen and certain members of its Board of Directors in the California Central District Court. Plaintiffs claim that
Amgen and various Board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and former em-
ployees 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 demon-
strated 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. On February 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the California Central District
Court to dismiss the claims of both plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the 9th Circuit, which remains pending before
the 9th Circuit. On May 19, 2008, plaintiff Ramos in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., action filed another lawsuit
captioned Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al., in the California Central District Court. The lawsuit is another ERISA
class action. The Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al., matter names the same defendants in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., matter plus four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing Limited, Richard Nanula, Dennis Fenton and the Fi-
duciary Committee. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Ramos matter has been stayed pending the outcome
F-50