Amgen 2012 Annual Report Download - page 141

F-42
The cash flow effects of our derivatives contracts for the three years ended December 31, 2012, are included within Net
cash provided by operating activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
18. Contingencies and commitments
Contingencies
In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various legal proceedings and other matters, including those discussed
in this Note, that are complex in nature and have outcomes that are difficult to predict.
We record accruals for loss contingencies to the extent that we conclude that it is probable that a liability has been incurred
and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings
and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that has been accrued previously.
Our legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff to a class action with thousands of putative class
members. These legal proceedings, as well as other matters, involve various aspects of our business and a variety of claims
(including but not limited to patent infringement, marketing, pricing and trade practices and securities law), some of which present
novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. In each of the matters described in this filing, plaintiffs seek an award of a
not-yet-quantified amount of damages or an amount that is not material. In addition, a number of the matters pending against us
are at very early stages of the legal process (which in complex proceedings of the sort faced by us often extend for several years).
As a result, none of the matters described in these filings have progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of
important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss, if any, or such amounts are not
material. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination
in one or more of these items currently pending could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.
Certain of our legal proceedings and other matters are discussed below:
Federal Securities Litigation - In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation
The six federal class action stockholder 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 U.S. 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'
Retirement 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 February 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 granted 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 August 28, 2009, Amgen filed a petition
for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court) under Rule 23(f), regarding
the Order on Class Certification and the Ninth Circuit Court granted Amgen's permission to appeal on December 11, 2009. On
February 2, 2010, the California Central District Court granted Amgen's motion to stay the underlying action pending the outcome
of the Ninth Circuit Court 23(f) appeal. On October 14, 2011, the appeal under Rule 23(f) was argued before the Ninth Circuit
Court and on December 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court denied the appeal. Amgen filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court on March 3, 2012, and on June 11, 2012, the Court granted Amgen's petition. Oral argument occurred on November