IBJNews

Lilly settles Zyprexa marketing suit for $1.4 billion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co.'s guilty plea for improper marketing of Zyprexa is its second such plea in just over three years.

Indianapolis-based Lilly pleaded guilty to one violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act on Thursday and agreed to pay $1.42 billion to settle both that criminal charge as well as civil lawsuits in which it did not admit wrongdoing.

Lilly made a similar plea in December 2005 for improperly marketing its osteoporosis drug Evista in 1998 as a treatment for breast cancer. Since the settlement, in which Lilly paid $36 million, Lilly has obtained regulatory approval for Evista to treat breast cancer.

"Since that time, Lilly has taken a number of steps to build toward an industry-leading compliance program," said Lilly spokeswoman Angela Sekston.
    
As part of the settlement, Lilly entered into a corporate-integrity pact. Sekston added that the company has already been doing most of the actions called for in the corporate-integrity pact signed as part of the Zyprexa settlement.

Lilly has cooperated with the Justice Department's investigation since it began in 2004. The investigation also included accusations that Lilly improperly marketed Zyprexa for use in the elderly and children, and that it did so over multiple years.

However, Lilly pleaded guilty only to improperly marketing Zyprexa to elderly patients as treatment for dementia, including Alzheimer's, from September 1999 to March 2001. For this action, Lilly agreed to pay $615 million.

The rest of the settlement money will go to resolve a series of civil lawsuits brought by the Medicaid programs of the federal governments and multiple states. These suits claimed that Lilly defrauded the health program for the poor by boosting the use of Zyprexa with improper marketing.

Lilly again denied those allegations, but agreed to settle the cases without admitting wrongdoing.

The corporate-integrity agreement Lilly entered into will last five years and will include an independent third-party review organization to assess and report on Lilly's systems, processes, policies, procedures and practices.

"Every day and with every interaction we strive to operate in a responsible and compliant manner. Doing the right thing is non-negotiable at Lilly, and I remain personally committed to all of us at Lilly maintaining the highest standards of conduct," said Lilly CEO John C. Lechleiter, in a statement.

Lilly already took a charge of $1.415 billion, or $1.29 per share, in the third quarter of 2008 in anticipation of today's settlement.

In previous settlements, Lilly has paid $62 million to 32 states to settle product-liability claims about Zyprexa. Thirteen other states have sued Lilly for both product liability and Medicaid fraud related to Zyprexa. Twelve of those suits are still outstanding after Lilly settled with Alaska last year for $15 million.

Thousands of individuals have sued Lilly over Zyprexa, claiming it caused weight gain and even diabetes. Lilly has set aside $1.2 billion to settle 32,000 individual cases. Another 125 remain.

Also outstanding are suits brought by insurance companies, labor unions and pension funds. The judge in that case, Jack Weinstein, certified it as a class action in September and recommended that Lilly settle.

Zyprexa is Lilly's bestselling drug. In 2007, it recorded $4.8 billion in global sales. After the settlement news, Lilly's share price fell 70 cents in morning trading, or 1.87 percent.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

ADVERTISEMENT