New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

RICO: Possibility That Third-Party Payor Was Derivatively Harmed by Statements Pharma Co. Made to Doctors or Patients Doesn’t Support RICO Liability — MDL Court’s Dismissal Order in Unconsolidated Case Is Immediately Appearlable

Download PDF

Med. Mut. of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., 2019 WL 5887194 (7th Cir. Nov. 12, 2019) (unpublished):

*1 Medical Mutual of Ohio contends in this suit under the civil-liability section of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964, that several pharmaceutical companies promoted testosterone creams for uses other than those approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Physicians are free to prescribe drugs for off-label uses, but manufacturers are forbidden to promote those uses. 21 U.S.C. §§ 321(p), 355(a), 396. Manufacturers also are forbidden to make false and misleading statements about their products. Medical Mutual asserts that the defendants made false or misleading statements to promote off-label uses, causing it to pay more for these drugs than it would have done had the defendants lived up to their legal obligations. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24063 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2019).

Although the district court administered Medical Mutual’s suit as part of multidistrict litigation under the caption In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2545, it was not consolidated with any of the other suits. Thus the final disposition of Medical Mutual’s claims is immediately appealable. See Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897 (2015); Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118 (2018).

The district court addressed at length the possibility that Medical Mutual was adversely affected by improper statements made directly to it or its pharmacy benefits manager. It ruled that no reasonable jury could conclude that Medical Mutual or the pharmacy benefits manager relied on any of these statements. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24063 at *416–52. We agree with the district court’s assessment, which need not be repeated here.

The possibility that Medical Mutual was derivatively affected by statements made to physicians or patients does not support liability under RICO, given the analysis of causation in Sidney Hillman Health Center v. Abbott Laboratories, 873 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2017).

 

AFFIRMED

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice