throbber
7/24/2017
`
`Pharmaceutical Companies to Pay $67 Million To Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Relating to Tarceva | OPA | Departmentof Justice
`
`JUSTICE NEWS
`
`Departmentof Justice
`
`Office of Public Affairs
`
`FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
`
`Monday, June 6, 2016
`
`Pharmaceutical Companies to Pay $67 Million To Resolve False Claims Act
`Allegations Relating to Tarceva
`
`Pharmaceutical companies GenentechInc. and OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC will pay $67 million to resolve False Claims
`Act allegations that they made misleading statements aboutthe effectiveness of the drug Tarceva to treat non-small cell
`lung cancer, the Departmentof Justice announced today. Genentech, located in South San Francisco, California, and
`OSI Pharmaceuticals, located in Farmingdale, New York, co-promote Tarceva, whichis approvedto treat certain
`patients with non-small cell lung cancer or pancreatic cancer. OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC is the successor to OSI
`Pharmaceuticals Inc., which was acquired by Astellas Holding US Inc. in 2010 and converted to a limited liability
`companyin 2011.
`
`“Pharmaceutical companies have a responsibility to provide accurate information to patients and health care providers
`abouttheir prescription drugs,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice
`Department's Civil Division. “The Department of Justice will hold those companies accountable that mislead the public
`aboutthe efficacy of their products.”
`
`The settlement resolves allegations that, between January 2006 and December 2011, Genentech and OSI
`Pharmaceuticals made misleading representations to physicians and other health care providers about the
`effectiveness of Tarcevato treat certain patients with non-small cell lung cancer, when there waslittle evidence to show
`that Tarceva waseffective to treat those patients unless they also had never smoked or had a mutationin their
`epidermal growth factor receptor, whichis a protein involved in the growth and spread of cancercells.
`
`As a result of today’s $67 million settlement, the federal governmentwill receive $62.6 million and state Medicaid
`programswill receive $4.4 million. The Medicaid program is funded jointly by the state and federal governments.
`
`“This settlement demonstrates the government’s unwavering commitment to pursue violations of the False Claims Act
`and recover taxpayerdollars spent as a result of misleading marketing campaigns,” said U.S. Attorney Brian Stretch for
`the Northern District of California.
`
`“Pharmaceutical companies that make misleading or unsubstantiated statements about their products can put patients
`at risk,” said Deputy Commissioner Howard R. Sklamberg for FDA's global regulatory operations andpolicy. “The FDA
`will continue to workto protect the public's health by ensuring that companies do not mislead healthcare providers
`abouttheir products.”
`
`“Drug manufacturers that make misleading claims about their product’s effectiveness can jeopardize the health of
`patients — in this case, cancer patients,” said Special Agent in Charge Steven J. Ryan for the U.S. Departmentof
`Health and HumanServices Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “Our agencywill continue to protect both patients
`and taxpayers by holding those who engagein such practices accountable for their actions.”
`
`The settlement resolves allegationsfiled in a lawsuit by former Genentech employee Brian Shields, in federal court in
`San Francisco. The lawsuit wasfiled under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which
`permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the governmentfor false claims and to share in any recovery. Shieldswill
`receive approximately $10 million.
`
`APOTEX EX. 1065-001
`
`https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-companies-pay-67-million-resolve-false-claims-act-allegations-relating-tarceva
`
`1/2
`
`APOTEX EX. 1065-001
`
`

`

`7/24/2017
`
`Pharmaceutical Companies to Pay $67 Million To Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Relating to Tarceva | OPA | Departmentof Justice
`
`This settlementillustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement
`for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT)initiative, which was announcedin May
`2009 by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The partnership between the two
`departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced
`cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice
`Departmenthas recovered a total of more than $29.8 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $18.2
`billion of that amount recoveredin casesinvolving fraud against federal health care programs.
`
`The settlementis the result of a coordinated effort by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the U.S.
`Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, with assistance from the HHS-OIG, the HHS Office of Counsel to
`the Inspector General, the HHS Office of the General Counsel-CMS Division, the FDA's Office Chief Counsel, the
`FDA\s Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of the Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management, the
`FBI, the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General, the Office of the General Counsel for the Defense
`Health Agency andthe National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
`
`The case is captioned United States ex rel. Shields v. Genentech,Inc., et al., Case No. CV 11 0822 MEJ (N.D. Ca.).
`The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determinationofliability.
`
`
`Topic(s):
`False Claims Act
`Healthcare Fraud
`
`Component(s):
`Civil Division
`
`Press Release Number:
`
`16-653
`
`Updated April 27, 2017
`
`https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-companies-pay-67-million-resolve-false-claims-act-allegations-relating-tarceva
`
`APOTEX EX. 1065-002
`
`APOTEX EX. 1065-002
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket