Remove 2012 Remove FDA Remove Fraud
article thumbnail

Federal Appeals Court Rules Investors can Continue to Bring Claims Against KV Pharmaceutical

The Health Law Firm

(KV) for making false or misleading statements to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The ruling was reached on June 4, 2012. Appeals Court Ruling Revives Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit. To view the appeals court ruling in Public Pension Fund Group v. KV Pharmaceutical Company, click here.

Fraud 40
article thumbnail

CPAP MDL Overinflates Plaintiffs’ Claims

Drug & Device Law

CPAP II shrugs off plaintiffs’ repeated allegations that defendants “failed to apprise the FDA” of this or that, with the excuse that plaintiffs don’t really “rely” on them. We saw more of the same with the discussion of consumer fraud claims in CPAP II. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. 341 (2001). 2023 WL 7019287, at *7.

Fraud 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit’s PATDC82 I allowed a RICO claim alleging that, between 1999 and 2011, defendants concealed that risk from the FDA and that, as a result, every TPP in the country paid for Actos prescriptions that it otherwise would not have reimbursed. But the FDA has concluded just the opposite. 3d 1243 (9th Cir.

Fraud 52
article thumbnail

Twombly and Iqbal Taken Seriously: Express-Preemption Dismissal

Drug & Device Law

The plaintiff asserted all the usual claims and then one: manufacturing defect; failure to warn; breach of warranty; and fraud. Plaintiffs alleged that manufactured had failed to investigate and report the event to the FDA as purportedly required. 452, 460 (2012). 2022 WL 1076173, at *5. National Meat Association v.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Suing the Certifiers – A Dangerous Undertaking

Drug & Device Law

The unfortunate truth is that ECFMG was also a victim of this fake doctor’s fraud. 2012 WL 3265002, at *5 (N.D. 8, 2012) (“For claims against trade associations in particular, public policy is ‘part of the legal mix’ and favors not imposing a duty.”); Lockman v. Such power rests solely with the FDA.” 3d 732, 745 (M.D.N.C.

Doctors 52
article thumbnail

Guest Post – Michigan Product Liability Law:  Retroactivity of New Law and Primer

Drug & Device Law

As the DDL blog has previously reported , Michigan’s longstanding presumption of non-defectiveness applicable to FDA-approved drugs was recently repealed by the Michigan legislature in S.B. As this provision is newly applicable to FDA-approved products, it has not been tested by the courts on this issue. 2d 279, 287 (Mich.

FDA 52
article thumbnail

Rock Solid Surgeon Testimony Leads to Equally Solid Summary Judgment Decision

Drug & Device Law

In 2012, Plaintiff underwent laparoscopic surgery to repair an inguinal hernia that included implanting defendant’s hernia mesh product. The court did not address that the product was cleared by the FDA, but that fact alone should defeat the extreme mental state required of defendants in intentional infliction of emotional distress cases.

FDA 52