Johnson and Johnson 2014 Annual Report Download - page 74

sale of Therakos. In March 2014, the United States Attorney’s Office requested that Johnson & Johnson produce certain
documents, and Johnson & Johnson is cooperating with the request. Following the divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson
retains OCD’s portion of any liability that may result from the investigation for activity that occurred prior to the sale of
Therakos.
In May 2013, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) received a subpoena from the Atlanta Regional Office of the Department
of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, seeking production of documents and information regarding:
(1) the sales, marketing and promotional practices, including the remuneration of healthcare providers, related to
NUCYNTA®IR and NUCYNTA®ER; and (2) any studies, reports and/or complaints regarding the safety and/or actual or
potential side effects of NUCYNTA®IR and NUCYNTA®ER. In October 2014, the United States Department of Justice
(DOJ) informed JPI that the government’s investigation stemmed from the filing of a qui tam complaint, that the DOJ had
formally declined to intervene in the qui tam action, and that the DOJ was closing its investigation related to NUCYNTA®
IR and NUCYNTA®ER. The plaintiff in the qui tam complaint filed a notice of dismissal and the Court dismissed the qui
tam action in December 2014.
In recent years, Johnson & Johnson has received numerous requests from a variety of United States Congressional
Committees to produce information relevant to ongoing congressional inquiries. It is the policy of Johnson & Johnson to
cooperate with these inquiries by producing the requested information.
GENERAL LITIGATION
In September 2006, Johnson & Johnson filed a lawsuit against Guidant Corporation (Guidant) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Guidant breached provisions of a merger agreement between
Johnson & Johnson and Guidant. In June 2011, Guidant filed a motion for summary judgment and in July 2014, the judge
denied Guidant’s motion. The trial concluded in January 2015 and in February 2015, before a decision was issued by the
Court, Johnson & Johnson and Guidant entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which Guidant agreed to pay
Johnson & Johnson $600 million and agreed that it will not sue Johnson & Johnson or its affiliates for patent infringement
regarding certain stent products. Johnson & Johnson will dismiss its action against Guidant with prejudice. The Company
will record this transaction in fiscal year 2015.
In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an investigation that has
since been closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking damages for
alleged price fixing. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. In August 2012, the District Court granted a
motion filed by Plaintiffs for class certification. In October 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
granted OCD’s petition for interlocutory review of the class certification ruling. Oral argument on the appeal was held in
February 2014 and the parties are awaiting a decision. Following the divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains any
liability that may result from these cases.
In September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey seeking class certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson and certain individuals, including executive officers
and employees of Johnson & Johnson, failed to disclose that a number of manufacturing facilities failed to maintain current
good manufacturing practices, and that as a result, the price of the Company’s stock declined significantly. Plaintiff sought
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover his alleged economic losses. In December
2011, a motion by Johnson & Johnson to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. In September 2012, Plaintiff filed
a Second Amended Complaint and Johnson & Johnson and the individual defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint in part. Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case, and in
July 2013, filed for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. In November 2013, the Court approved the
settlement. Three parties that had objected to the settlement appealed the Court’s approval orders. Prior to the mediation
for the appeal, the parties agreed to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and without costs against any party. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the case in April 2014.
In April 2011, OMJ Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OMJ PR) filed a lawsuit against the United States in United States District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico alleging overpayment of federal income taxes for the tax years ended November 30, 1999
and November 30, 2000. OMJ PR alleged that the Internal Revenue Service erroneously calculated OMJ PR’s tax credits
under Section 936 of the Tax Code. OMJ PR filed a motion for summary judgment, and the United States filed a cross
motion for summary judgment. In October 2012, the Court granted a motion by the United States for summary judgment
and denied a motion by OMJ PR for summary judgment. OMJ PR appealed this decision. In June 2014, the appellate court
reversed the trial court’s decision and instructed the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of OMJ PR.
64 •Johnson & Johnson 2014 Annual Report