IBJNews

Lilly stock shows little impact from $3B court award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co.’s stock showed little change Tuesday morning in the wake of a federal court decision that saw jurors order the company to pay a massive damage award related to its Actos diabetes medicine.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. and Lilly on Monday were told to pay a combined $9 billion after the jury found they hid the cancer risks of their Actos medicine in the first U.S. trial of its kind.

Indianapolis-based Lilly, Takeda’s partner, was ordered to pay $3 billion, an amount that represents nearly 13 percent of its 2013 revenue total of $23.1 billion.

Lilly’s stock was down just 1 cent late Tuesday morning, to $58.61 per share, a good indication that investors don’t think Lilly will be on the hook for much, if any, of the damage award.

“The judgment is so out of line with actual damages that it shows a runaway jury, not a verdict that is likely to stand, even if an appeals court believes Takeda and Lilly wrongfully hid the risk of cancer,” Erik Gordon, professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Law and Ross School of Business, told Bloomberg News.

Takeda and Lilly officials said they’d appeal the jury verdict, which may be the largest single award in U.S. history over a drugmaker’s mishandling of a product.

Lilly noted it wasn't named in three previous Actos trials, all of which were found in Takeda's favor.

“Lilly’s shares … shouldn’t be down,” Mark Schoenebaum, an analyst with ISI Group LLC, told Bloomberg, noting that the company’s indemnity agreement with Takeda should eliminate any exposure to the verdict.

    
 

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. I could be wrong, but I don't think Butler views the new dorm as mere replacements for Schwitzer and or Ross.

  2. An increase of only 5% is awesome compared to what most consumers face or used to face before passage of the ACA. Imagine if the Medicaid program had been expanded to the 400k Hoosiers that would be eligible, the savings would have been substantial to the state and other policy holders. The GOP predictions of plan death spirals, astronomical premium hikes and shortages of care are all bunk. Hopefully voters are paying attention. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare), where fully implemented, has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured and helped contained the growth in healthcare costs.

  3. So much for competition lowering costs.

  4. As I understand the proposal, Keystone would take on the debt, not the city/CRC. So the $104K would not be used to service the $3.8M bond. Keystone would do that with its share.

  5. Adam C, if anything in Carmel is "packed in like sardines", you'll have to show me where you shop for groceries. Based on 2014 population estimates, Carmel has around 85,000 people spread across about 48 square miles, which puts its density at well below 1800 persons/sq mi, which is well below Indianapolis (already a very low-density city). Noblesville is minimally less dense than Carmel as well. The initiatives over the last few years have taken what was previously a provincial crossroads with no real identity beyond lack of poverty (and the predictably above-average school system) and turned it into a place with a discernible look, feel, and a center. Seriously, if you think Carmel is crowded, couldn't you opt to live in the remaining 95% of Indiana that still has an ultra-low density development pattern? Moreover, if you see Carmel as "over-saturated" have you ever been to Chicago--or just about any city outside of Indiana?

ADVERTISEMENT