First Criminal Charges Filed In BP Oil Spill Case

The Department of Justice brought the first criminal charges related to the massive Gulf oil spill, accusing a former BP engineer of deleting more than 300 text messages that suggested that the blown-out well was spewing far more crude than the company was telling the public at the time.

Kurt Mix of Katy, Texas was arrested and charged with two counts of obstruction of justice for allegedly destroying evidence. His attorney, Joan McPhee, issued a statement describing the charges as misguided and that she is confident Mix will be exonerated. “The government says he intentionally deleted text messages from his phone, but the content of those messages still resides in thousands of emails, text messages and other documents that he saved,” she said. “Indeed, the emails that Kurt preserved include the very ones highlighted by the government.”

Department of Justice officials made it clear the arrest did not signal an end to the investigation. In a statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said prosecutors “will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history.” Federal investigators have been looking into the causes of the blowout and the actions of managers, engineers and rig workers at BP and its subcontractors Halliburton and Transocean in the days and hours before the April 20, 2010, explosion.

In court papers, the FBI said one of the areas under investigation is whether the oil company intentionally lowballed the amount of crude spewing from the well. An accurate flow-rate estimate is necessary to determine how much in penalties BP and its subcontractors could face under the Clean Water Act. In court papers, prosecutors appeared to suggest the company was also worried about the effect of the disaster on its stock price.

The BP disaster is a classic example of what happens when a company puts profit before purpose, and it’s a story the litigation attorneys at Lord & Faris have heard before. If you’ve been injured by similar conduct, contact us for a free consultation as you may have rights at risk.

• 

Generic Drug Makers Get A Win From Supreme Court

The Supreme Court took away one weapon makers of brand-name drugs have used to fight off generic competition, holding them accountable for what they tell the Food and Drug Administration about their products’ patent coverage. In a rare unanimous decision the court ruled that Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories can sue Novo Nordisk for what Caraco claims are exaggerated descriptions of the scope of patents Novo Nordisk holds on the diabetes drug Prandin.

Under federal law governing generic drug approvals, a generic drug maker can market a drug for indications not covered by a current patent held by the branded product’s owner. Frequently a branded drug company will hold a patent on some approved uses but not others and in those cases generic firms can seek approval from the FDA for the unpatented indications.

Caraco sued in federal court, where a district judge agreed that Novo Nordisk had acted improperly. An appeals court then reversed that ruling, arguing that the law gave Caraco no right to sue as long as Novo Nordisk held any unexpired method-of-use patents on the drug, irrespective of the indications covered.

If the Supreme Court would have agreed with the appellate court it would keep generics off the market until all of a branded drug’s method-of-use patents had expired — 2018 in the case of repaglinide. Such a decision would effectively close out the drug sales market from any generic manufacturer and consumers would be the ones to suffer most.

Ultimately this is a decision that will eventually lead to more accessible and affordable prescriptions for all consumers. And so long as we continue to improve the safety and oversight of these medications then both businesses and patients should benefit. This is a good decision for the industry and a good decision for consumers.

If you or a loved one have become sick or injured as a result of taking prescription medication, contact the drug injury attorneys at Lord & Faris for a free consultation. You may have rights at risk.

• 

Merck Hit With Big Fine Over Vioxx Promotions

A federal judge in Boston has imposed a $321.6 million criminal fine against Merck & Co Inc. for its Vioxx promotion and marketing activities, bringing the company’s total payout in recent months to nearly $1 billion for illegal marketing. The fine follows a December 2011 guilty plea to allegations that Merck violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by introducing a misbranded drug into the marketplace.

The sentencing effectively ends the government’s multiyear investigation into Merck’s conduct around Vioxx, a pain reliever that was pulled from the marketplace in September 2004 because of safety concerns. Merck had promoted Vioxx for rheumatoid arthritis for nearly three years before the FDA approved it for that use in April 2002.

Merck had already agreed to pay $628.4 million to resolve other charges of off-label marketing of Vioxx and false statements about the drug’s cardiovascular safety. That settlement included $426.4 million for the United States and nearly $202 million for participating states, which relied on the company’s false statements. The settlement included 44 states and the District of Columbia, according to a February U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing. According to Merck, Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Utah did not participate in the settlement.

As part of the civil settlement, Merck also signed a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services.

In a written statement, Carmen Ortiz, the U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, said, “The severity of these criminal and civil sanctions should serve as a reminder of this office, and this department’s unwavering commitment to holding drug companies fully accountable for failures to comply with their public safety and marketing obligations, and to recovering taxpayer funds that have gone towards the purchase of illegally marketed products.”

The settlement and resolution of the case is good news for consumers but another reminder of how closely these companies must be monitored. If you or a loved one has been injured by a drug product, contact the attorneys at Lord & Faris for a free consultation as you may have rights at risk.

• 

Toyota May Face Additional Claims

Despite Toyota’s recent efforts to clear away some of the litigation it faces in connection with the massive recall of many of its models, a federal judge has chosen a different route, ruling that additional economic damages claims can be asserted against the manufacturer in the multi-district litigation surrounding sudden acceleration problems.

The temporary order came after the plaintiffs’ steering committee in the litigation filed its first consolidated complaint for economic damages. In that complaint the plaintiffs allege that Toyota knowingly hid defects associated with unintended acceleration beginning in 2002 while falsely assuring consumers about the safety of its vehicles.

Two complaints were actually brought. One was an economic loss master complaint, filed on behalf of 50 named consumers and four business nationwide. A second was an amended complaint filed by 10 consumers and two businesses in California alleging violations of California law.

Toyota dismissed the move as nothing more than tactical gamesmanship and accused plaintiffs of “tactical gamesmanship”. According to Toyota, the move by plaintiffs is pretty simple and transparent–to make a move for getting the largest certified class possible and thus the largest recovery they can manage.

To date, 186 class actions in 39 states, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have been filed, all seeking economic damages associated with the acceleration problems in Toyota models. Here in Minnesota we’ve seen this issue come to a head with the tragic case of a man imprisoned on manslaughter charges despite his claims that his Toyota simply wouldn’t stop. As these posts illustrate, Toyota’s legal issues are far from over. If you or a loved one has been affected by the recall, contact our Minneapolis personal injury attorneys for a free consultation as your rights may be affected by the ongoing litigation.

• 

New Consumer Protection Agency Begins To Take Shape

After months of speculation and rumor, President Obama announced that he was appointing Harvard Law Professor and consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren to a position of special adviser to oversee the creation of a new agency to regulate banks, lenders and credit card companies. Warren has been a vocal critic of both Wall Street and The Department of the Treasury’s response to the financial crisis, particularly noting that little has been done to aid consumers struggling the most.

Warren is an expert in bankruptcy law and warned Washington of the dangers of predatory lending practices, particularly in relation to residential mortgages both before and during the beginning stages of the financial crisis.

Many had hoped that Warren would be appointed to direct the new agency given both her passion and experience. But the banking industry and many conservatives in Congress came out strongly opposed to a Warren nomination, believing that she would be too aggressive in industry oversight and regulation. Many believe this appointment is a way to allow Warren the ability to mold the new consumer protection agency and avoid a lengthy and bruising confirmation process.

Some of the areas that Warren will be instrumental in shaping include new oversight in the areas of mortgage lending, consumer credit such as credit cards and payday lending. Many of these areas have run fast and loose with consumers and it was their recklessness that allowed the financial crisis to reach the level it did. The Minneapolis injury attorneys at Lord & Faris congratulate Professor Warren on her appointment and look forward to seeing the results that a strong advocate for working Americans will bring to Washington.

• 

Should Doctors Have a Financial Interest in Biomedical Products Research?

Should doctors be allowed to perform clinical trial research involving products if they have even an indirect financial stake in that product? It’s a question that is squarely before the FDA and an answer to which Minnesota-based Medtronic has a lot riding.

The product at issue dates back to 2002. At that time a group of FDA advisers met to decide whether or not to approve a powerful agent that promised to revolutionize back surgery. Even then one of the advisors raised initial concerns that some of the research in support of the product had been conducted by a doctor with a financial interest in the product. The rest of the advisors brushed off the concern and proceeded with approval.

Flash forward several years to complaints about the product, including widespread, unapproved use and adverse reactions in some patients that include life-threatening swelling in the neck from bone in unwanted locations and possibly fueling the growth of cancer cells or sparking adverse immune system reactions.

Now Medtronic is back before the FDA seeking approval of a similar product, and the agency and doctors have raised concerns about these adverse reactions and the ties many of the clinical researchers have to the product. It should go without saying that if a researcher stands to make a profit from the approval of a particular product they should not be involved in directing or conducting research in support of that product. But currently there is no hard and fast rule prohibiting such relationships. Given the change in focus by the FDA over the last year, that could change, and if it did, the Minneapolis Drug injury lawyers at Lord & Faris think that consumers would be much better off.

•