Zyprexa appeal rejected by Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to revive a bid to press a class-action suit against Eli Lilly and Co. over the marketing of Zyprexa, the company’s schizophrenia treatment.

The justices on Monday turned away an appeal by pension funds, unions and insurers that claim they spent more for the drug than it was worth. The plaintiffs say Lilly violated a federal racketeering law by making fraudulent claims about Zyprexa’s safety and effectiveness, and promoting it for non-approved uses.

The group was seeking $6.8 billion on behalf of thousands of so-called third-party payors. A federal appeals court said the case wasn’t appropriate for class-action status and told a trial judge to consider whether the plaintiffs filing the suit could press their individual claims.

Indianapolis-based Lilly in 2009 pleaded guilty to promoting Zyprexa for unapproved uses and agreed to pay $1.4 billion in criminal and civil penalties. Zyprexa is its top-selling drug, with about $5 billion in annual sales.

Zyprexa will lose patent protection in October, costing Lilly most of those sales to cheaper generic copies.


Post a comment to this story

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

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 can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.