XML 192 R41.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Litigation
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Litigation

34. Litigation

We are involved in legal and administrative proceedings that could have a material adverse effect on us.

Zonegran matter

In January 2006, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, asking for documents and materials primarily related to our marketing practices for Zonegran, an antiepileptic prescription medicine that we divested to Eisai Inc. in April 2004.

In December 2010, we finalized our agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts to resolve all aspects of the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation of sales and marketing practices for Zonegran. In addition, we pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act and entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services to promote our compliance with the requirements of U.S. federal healthcare programs and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). If we materially fail to comply with the requirements of U.S. federal healthcare programs or the FDA, or otherwise materially breach the terms of the Corporate Integrity Agreement, such as by a material breach of the compliance program or reporting obligations of the Corporate Integrity Agreement, severe sanctions could be imposed upon us.

In March 2011, we paid $203.5 million pursuant to the terms of a global settlement resolving all U.S. federal and related state Medicaid claims. During 2010, we recorded a $206.3 million charge for the settlement, interest and related costs.

This resolution of the Zonegran investigation could give rise to other investigations or litigation by state government entities or private parties.

 

Securities matters

In March 2005, we received a letter from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stating that the SEC’s Division of Enforcement was conducting an informal inquiry into actions and securities trading relating to Tysabri events. The SEC’s inquiry primarily relates to events surrounding the February 28, 2005 announcement of the decision to voluntarily suspend the marketing and clinical dosing of Tysabri. We have provided materials to the SEC in connection with the inquiry but have not received any additional requests for information or interviews relating to the inquiry.

The SEC notified us in January 2009 that the SEC was conducting an informal inquiry primarily relating to the July 31, 2008 announcement concerning the initial two Tysabri-related progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) cases that occurred subsequent to the resumption of marketing Tysabri in 2006. We have provided the SEC with materials in connection with the inquiry.

On September 24, 2009, we received a subpoena from the SEC’s New York Regional Office requesting records relating to an investigation captioned In the Matter of Elan Corporation, plc. The subpoena requested records and information relating to the July 31, 2008 announcement of the two Tysabri-related PML cases as well as records and information relating to the July 29, 2008 announcement at the International Conference of Alzheimer’s Disease concerning the Phase 2 trial data for bapineuzumab. In July 2011 and throughout 2012, we received supplemental requests for documents from the SEC and/or the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) related to this matter. We have provided the SEC and the DOJ with materials in connection with the investigation.

We and some of our officers and directors were named as defendants in five putative class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2008. The cases were consolidated as In Re: Elan Corporation Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on August 17, 2009, and alleged claims under the U.S. federal securities laws and sought damages on behalf of all purchasers of our stock during periods ranging between May 21, 2007 and October 21, 2008. The complaints alleged that we issued false and misleading public statements concerning the safety and efficacy of bapineuzumab. On July 23, 2010, a securities case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This case was accepted by the court as a “related case” to the existing 2008 matter. The 2010 case purported to be filed on behalf of all purchasers of Elan call options during the period from June 17, 2008 to July 29, 2008. On August 10, 2011, the court dismissed the class action lawsuits with prejudice. The “related case” plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which dismissed the appeal on February 1, 2013.

Tysabri product liability lawsuits

We and our collaborator Biogen Idec are co-defendants in product liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of PML and other serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in patients taking Tysabri. We expect additional product liability lawsuits related to Tysabri to be filed. While we intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits, we cannot predict how these cases will be resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits could result in substantial monetary judgments against us.