Amgen 2009 Annual Report Download - page 171

AMGEN INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
of the Harris matter appeal. Oral argument before the 9th Circuit on the plaintiffs’ appeal of the California Central
District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims occurred on May 8, 2009. On July 14, 2009, the 9th Circuit re-
versed the California Central District Court’s decision and remanded the case back to the district court. In the
meantime, a third ERISA class action was filed by Don Hanks on June 2, 2009 in the Central District of Cal-
ifornia alleging the same ERISA violations as in the Harris and Ramos lawsuits.
On October 13, 2009, the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs Harris’ and Ramos’ motion to
be appointed interim co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 11, 2009 and added
two additional plaintiffs, Jorge Torres and Albert Cappa. Amgen filed a motion to dismiss the amended/
consolidated complaint on December 16, 2009. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on January 19, 2010. The motion
to dismiss was argued on February 11, 2010 but no ruling from the California Central District Court has been is-
sued.
Third-Party Payers Litigation
On June 5, 2007, the United Food & Commercial Workers Central Pennsylvania and Regional Health &
Welfare Fund v. Amgen Inc. (the “United Food Matter”), on June 7, 2007 the Vista Healthplan Inc. v. Amgen Inc.
(the “Vista Healthplan Matter”), on June 14, 2007, the Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund
v. Amgen. Inc. (the “Painters Matter”), on August 8, 2007, the Ironworkers v. Amgen Inc. (the “Ironworkers
Matter”), on August 15, 2007, Watters (State of Michigan) v. Amgen Inc. (the “Watters Matter”), and on Au-
gust 28, 2007, Sheet Metal v. Amgen Inc. (the “Sheet Metal Matter”), putative class action lawsuits, were filed by
third-party payers against Amgen in the California Central District Court. In each action, the plaintiff alleges that
Amgen marketed its anemia medicines, EPOGEN®and Aranesp®, for “off-label” uses, or uses that are not ap-
proved by the FDA, and claims that, as a result, the plaintiff paid for unwarranted prescriptions. Specifically, the
complaints allege that Amgen promoted EPOGEN®and Aranesp®for: treating cancer patients who are not on
chemotherapy; treating quality of life symptoms associated with anemia, such as fatigue; and reaching hemoglo-
bin targets above the FDA-approved level. Each plaintiff asserts claims under California’s consumer protection
statutes and for breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment and plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide
class of individuals and entities.
On October 29, 2007, in the United Food Matter, the Vista Healthplan Matter and the Painters Matter, a mo-
tion to dismiss and a motion to transfer each of the three cases were heard before California Central District
Court. On November 13, 2007, the United Food Matter was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Pennsylvania, the Vista Healthplan Matter was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida and the Painters Matter was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On December 4, 2007, the Watters Matter was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. On January 25, 2008, the Ironworkers Matter was transferred back to the District Court of New Jersey.
On February 4, 2008, the California Central District Court heard defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to
transfer the Sheet Metal Matter back to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
On January 10, 2008, plaintiffs in the United Food Matter brought a motion before the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) seeking to have the five third-party payer lawsuits consolidated into one MDL
case and assigned to the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants filed an opposition to the MDL consolidation
motion on February 3, 2008.
On January 11, 2008, the Vista Healthplan Matter was voluntarily dismissed. On April 8, 2008, the Judicial
Panel on MDL granted plaintiffs’ motion in the United Food Matter to centralize the five third-party payer law-
suits into one MDL case for the purpose of consolidated pre-trial proceedings and the five cases have been
transferred back to the California Central District Court. The five cases will be transferred back to their re-
spective jurisdictions if and when they are set for trial. On December 17, 2008, the MDL Court granted
F-51