IBJNews

Takeda, Lilly may face thousands of suits over Actos claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Asia’s biggest drugmaker, may face as many as 10,000 lawsuits in U.S. courts over allegations that its Actos diabetes drug causes bladder cancer, and a group of judges is preparing to decide where those suits should be consolidated.

The drug was marketed for Takeda in the United States by Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. from July 1999 to March 2006 and in several other countries until this year.

U.S. regulators found in June that an analysis of a company-sponsored study showed some users of Actos, the world’s best-selling diabetes medication, faced an increased risk of developing the potentially fatal disease.

The evidence linking Actos to bladder cancer “is unusually strong and clear,” Paul J. Pennock, a New York-based lawyer representing former users of the drug, said in a telephone interview. He said his firm, Weitz & Luxemberg, represents 1,200 former Actos users and that total cases may reach 10,000.

“We are getting calls every day about Actos,” he said.

Pennock was set to appear Thursday before a judicial panel in Savannah, Ga., to argue that federal court suits over the drug, whose chemical name is pioglitazone, should be gathered for pretrial proceedings in Louisiana or Ohio.

Takeda officials this year pulled Actos, its top-selling drug, off the market in Germany and France after it was linked to an increased cancer risk. The medication had sales of $4.8 billion in the last fiscal year, 27 percent of the Osaka, Japan-based company’s revenue.

The drugmaker declined to comment on the impact of the lawsuits to its earnings or whether it plans to set aside money for the litigation.

“Takeda already revised the information on risks regarding bladder cancer on leaflets in the U.S. and Japan and is in the process of updating in Europe,” Mitsuo Oguri, a Takeda spokesman in Tokyo, said. “Takeda remains confident on the efficacy of pioglitazone for treating type 2 diabetes, while it continues to monitor the safety profile of the medicine.”

The company’s lawyers said in a September court filing that so far it had been sued 54 times over Actos in federal courts around the U.S.

Terrence Allen, a warehouse worker, filed one of them, against Takeda and Lilly. He took the drug over a five- year-period starting in 2006 and was diagnosed with bladder cancer in January.

Stefanie Prodouz, a spokeswoman for Lilly, didn’t return calls for comment on the Actos suits naming the drugmaker as a defendant.

Allen, of Attica, N.Y., said he’s had two surgeries to remove cancerous tissue from his bladder and may be facing another after the Christmas holiday.

“If somebody had told me I could get cancer from Actos, I never would have taken it,” he said. “There were other products out there that could have helped treat my diabetes without putting me through all of this.”

Allen, 57, said he sued the drugmaker to help alert other diabetics that Actos poses serious health risks. He’s also hoping the litigation will force Takeda to take responsibility for his injuries, he said.

“To some degree, I would like my pound of flesh from the company,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers say they expect thousands more former Actos users to join Allen in suing Takeda over the drug given its rise in popularity after GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s Avandia diabetes drug was found to pose an increased heart-attack risk.

Glaxo officials pulled the drug from European markets and curtailed sales in the U.S. in 2007 after studies found Avandia posed greater risk of heart attacks and strokes than Actos.

The London-based drugmaker has paid more than $6 billion for legal costs tied to Avandia and other medicines. In the wake of Avandia’s problems, Actos’s sales rose from about $3 billion in 2006 to almost $5 billion last year.

Will Kemp, a Las Vegas-based attorney representing former Actos users, said the suits will differ from Avandia cases because the alleged injuries are more distinctive.

“Bladder cancer is considered to be a signature injury because there aren’t a lot of other things that cause that particular illness,” he said. “With a heart attack or stroke, you’d have a slew of other potential causes to deal with.”

Turner Branch, a New Mexico-based plaintiffs’ lawyer, said Takeda also will face claims that Actos caused heart attacks and strokes like Avandia. “I think this is going to be very large litigation with a large number of cases,” he added.

Before corralling the litigation in one court, judges on the so-called Multi-District Litigation panel will hear arguments Thursday on which federal court should be selected.

Similar cases in courts across the U.S. can be consolidated before one judge for pretrial exchange of information. The consolidation is intended to save money by streamlining document exchanges and avoiding duplication.

Lawyers for Takeda and some of the plaintiffs are arguing in court papers that the Actos suits should be consolidated in federal court before U.S. District Judge James Zagel in Chicago or before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty in Lafayette, La.

Other plaintiffs’ attorneys are suggesting the cases be collected before U.S. District Judge Daniel Polster in Cleveland, according to court filings. Another group of lawyers seek to have the suits consolidated in federal court in Birmingham, Ala.

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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT