May 24, 2012

More Big Pharma Companies Cough Up Big Dollars in DOJ Settlements

The parade of major drug companies coughing up nine-digit or ten-digit dollar amounts in settlements with the U.S. government is continuing.

GlaxoSmithKline recently broke a record by agreeing to pay the federal government $3 billion to settle an illegal pharmaceutical marketing case. This surpasses the previous record of $2.3 billion paid by Pfizer in 2009 over the marketing of its Bextra painkiller and other drugs. The same year, Eli Lilly & Co. paid $1.4 billion in a settlement concerning sales of its Zyprexa anti-psychotic medicine. In late November, Merck & Co. agreed to pay $950 million and plead guilty to a criminal misdemeanor charge to resolve allegations that it illegally promoted its former painkiller Vioxx and deceived the government about the drug’s safety.

As these settlement amounts skyrocket, the industry is left wondering just how high they can go and how much the government will demand.

The huge Glaxo settlement covers civil and criminal liabilities following an eight-year-old probe into the company’s marketing of several top-selling drugs. Most prominently, the settlement resolves charges that Glaxo illegally marketed the diabetes drug Avandia by paying doctors to promote it and manipulating medical research to downplay associated heart risks. It also follows the investigation of Glaxo’s off-label marketing of anti-depression drug Wellbutrin, and the company’s alleged misrepresentation of the potential suicide risk associated with another anti-depression medication, Paxil.

As a spin-off from the Wellbutrin probe, Lauren Stevens, a former vice president and associate general counsel of GlaxoSmithKline, faced criminal charges of obstruction of justice and making false statements to the Food and Drug Administration earlier this year. However, in a highly publicized and damaging loss for the Justice Department, a federal judge in Maryland acquitted her on all charges.

In June, Glaxo’s U.S. subsidiary agreed to pay more than $40 million to settle complaints about manufacturing processes at a plant in Puerto Rico, which has been closed. The company also paid a $750 million fine in 2010 related to the Puerto Rico plant. Despite the huge cost of these settlements, some see them simply as the cost of doing business for these major pharmaceutical companies.

Still, we have to ask why the Department of Justice seems to be targeting this industry. Is it because they can pull in large profits in good years, when their blockbuster drugs remain under patent control? Of course, quite often the major pharma companies find their pipeline of inventions fairly narrow and their major inventions long since in the hands of the generic-drug companies.

As the companies’ biggest client, the government has the power to strong arm them into settlement. The current cases prove, yet again, that the Department of Justice will continue to prioritize the issue of illegal pharmaceutical marketing and pursue larger and larger settlements against companies in this industry. They are certainly forewarned.

© 2012 Ifrah PLLC

About the Author

Associate

Sarah Coffey is a defense attorney with the DC-based boutique Ifrah Law where she advises clients of their legal rights and responsibilities on issues such as gaming law, affiliate marketing and advertising, and where she has also managed a large-scale document production to the FTC.   Prior to joining Ifrah Law, Sarah served a year-long  clerkship with the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. At a time when the FTC is stepping up its scrutiny of affiliate networks and social media marketing, her experience has proven invaluable to businesses...

202-524-4144

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.