AbbVie 2013 Annual Report Download - page 99

including the Federal False Claims Act, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and the Anti-Kickback
Statute in connection with Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement to third parties. The state
Attorneys General offices sought to determine whether any of these activities violated various state
laws, including state consumer fraud/protection statutes. AbbVie recorded charges of $1.5 billion in the
third quarter of 2011 and $100 million in the first quarter of 2012 related to civil and criminal claims
arising from this matter. In May 2012, AbbVie reached resolution of all Depakote-related federal
claims, Medicaid-related claims with 49 states and the District of Columbia, and consumer protection
claims with 45 states and the District of Columbia. In 2012, AbbVie paid approximately $1.6 billion for
the settlement. The payments were material to AbbVie’s combined statement of cash flows for the year
ended December 31, 2012.
Two cases are pending in state courts against AbbVie that generally allege Abbott and numerous other
pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing information in connection with certain drugs that are
reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid. These cases, State of Wisconsin, filed in June 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Dane County, Wisconsin, and State of Illinois, filed in February 2005 in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, were brought by state Attorneys General and generally seek monetary
damages and/or injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. This litigation is no longer material to AbbVie and
AbbVie will no longer report on such cases. All other previously-reported cases that were pending
against AbbVie in state courts have been settled.
Lawsuits have been filed against AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent litigation
settlement involving Niaspan entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by
Abbott Laboratories in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company violates
federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment
laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In
September 2013, all of these pending putative class action lawsuits were centralized for consolidated or
coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under the Multi-District Litigation Rules as In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2460.
In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, et al. v.
AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit providers alleging violations of federal RICO statutes and
state deceptive business practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with reimbursements for
certain uses of Depakote from 1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief
and attorneys’ fees.
Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a
company Abbott acquired in February 2010) and others were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi District Litigation
Rules as In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084. These cases, brought by private plaintiffs
and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay’s 2006 patent litigation involving
AndroGel was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement agreement and related agreements
with three generic companies violate federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection and
unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and
attorneys’ fees. MDL 2084 includes: (a) three individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b) seven purported class
actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in May 2009 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. In February 2010, Solvay’s
motion to dismiss the cases was partially granted and all of the FTC’s claims and all of the plaintiffs’
claims except those alleging sham litigation were dismissed. The FTC appealed and in May 2012 the
district court’s decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In
June 2013, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision affirming
dismissal of the FTC’s claims and remanded the case brought by the FTC, ruling that the patent
95