Amgen 2007 Annual Report Download - page 162

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 162 of the 2007 Amgen annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 180

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 161
  • 162
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168
  • 169
  • 170
  • 171
  • 172
  • 173
  • 174
  • 175
  • 176
  • 177
  • 178
  • 179
  • 180

AMGEN INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
participated in a scheme to market the spread between the true wholesale price (i.e., selling price) and the
false and inflated AWP reported, in order to increase market share, thus defrauding the county Medicaid
program. On April 15, 2005, defendants filed a notice of removal from the Supreme Court of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. This case was remanded to state court by or-
der dated January 10, 2006. A hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss was held on May 2, 2006. On
September 7, 2006, the court granted in part, and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss. Immunex’s
motion to dismiss was granted and Amgen’s motion to dismiss was denied. On October 11, 2006, this case
was removed to United States District Court for the Western District of New York. On September 1, 2007,
the case was remanded to the Supreme Court of New York, Erie County.
State of Mississippi v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. This case was filed against Amgen and Im-
munex, along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, on October 20, 2005 in the Chancery Court
of Hinds County, Mississippi, First Judicial District. The complaint alleges that defendants reported prices
for certain products in a manner that allegedly inflated reimbursement under the Mississippi state Medicaid
program. On October 11, 2006, this case was removed to United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of Mississippi. On October 25, 2006, the case was transferred to the MDL proceeding. A hearing before
the Massachusetts District Court on Plaintiff’s motion to remand was held on February 1, 2007. On Sep-
tember 1, 2007, the case was remanded to the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, First Judicial
District. On December 13, 2007, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction was denied.
State of Arizona, etc., et al., vs. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. This case was filed against Amgen and
Immunex, along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, on December 7, 2005 in Maricopa Coun-
ty, Arizona. The complaint alleges that Amgen and Immunex, together with many other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, reported prices for certain products in a manner that allegedly inflated reimbursement under
the Arizona state Medicaid program. On October 10, 2006, this case removed to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts and was transferred to the MDL proceeding. Plaintiff’s motion to
remand was denied on October 25, 2006.
State of Alaska v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. This case was filed against Amgen and Immunex,
along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, on October 6, 2006 in the Alaska Superior Court in
Anchorage, Alaska. The compliant alleges that Amgen and Immunex, together with many other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, reported prices for certain products in a manner that allegedly inflated re-
imbursement under the Alaska state Medicaid program. Amgen and Immunex were served with the
complaint on October 19, 2006. Amgen and Immunex filed motions to dismiss on January 5, 2007. A hear-
ing on Defendants’, which includes Amgen and Immunex together with other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, motions to dismiss was held on May 9, 2007. At the May hearing, the court orally denied the
joint motion to dismiss. A tentative trial date of April 2010 has been set. On February 4, 2008, Immunex
was dismissed from the case without prejudice.
County of Schenectady v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. This case was filed against Amgen and Im-
munex, along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, on May 9, 2006 in the Supreme Court of
New York, Schenectady County. On August 21, 2006, Immunex was served with the complaint and on Au-
gust 24, 2006, Amgen was served with the complaint. On October 11, 2006, this case was removed to
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand on
November 6, 2006. On September 1, 2007, the case was remanded to the Supreme Court of New York,
Schenectady County.
IUOE, Local 68 v. AstraZeneca, PLC, et al. This case was filed against Amgen and Immunex, along
with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, on June 30, 2003 in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Monmouth County. The complaint alleges that Amgen and Immunex, together with many other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, reported prices for certain products in a manner that allegedly inflated re-
imbursement under the New Jersey state Medicaid program. Defendants filed a motion to remove the case to
F-36