Click The Law - Headline Legal News
Class Action Cites Zetia & Vytorin
Areas of Focus | 2008/04/11 15:53
In a shareholder's class action that neatly summarizes complaints about Schering-Plough Corp.'s sales of its cholesterol drugs Zetia and Vytorin, the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System claims: "Sixteen months after completion of a study showing that its two most profitable drugs had no greater health benefit than far cheaper generic competitors - and may even be harmful - Schering sold over $4 billion of its own securities to the investing without disclosing the results of the study. This lack of disclosure violated the securities laws."

    The complaint continues: "It took the Company another five months to disclose some of the study results and when it did, Schering's stock dropped precipitously and investors were harmed. Ten weeks after that initial disclosure, Schering disclosed the study results in their entirety, which caused the stock to drop even further.

    "Defendant Schering manufactures and markets two anti-cholesterol drugs called Zetia and Vytorin. Vytorin is a combination of Zetia and Zocor - in generic form, simvastatin - and is jointly manufactured and marketed with Merck & Co., Inc. Total sales of Zetia and Vytorin were $3.9 billion in 2006 and $5.2 billion in 2007. These drugs are Schering's most profitable, accounting for 70 percent of its profits, by one estimate."

    This is not the first such class action against Schering-Plough. Courthouse News reports it because its first six pages contain a clear and concise summary of the allegations, and the history of the medical trials that Schering allegedly failed to disclose.

    Plaintiffs are represented by James Cecchi with Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein of Roseland, N.J.


Circuit Applies New Test for Declaratory Judgment
Areas of Focus | 2008/04/01 16:26

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 127 S.Ct. 764 (2007). See Micron Technology, Inc. v. MOSAID Technologies, Inc., 2008 WL 540182 (Feb. 29, 2008)

Micron was one of the four largest manufacturers of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips. Micron, together with Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd, Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., and Infineon Technologies of North America, controlled seventy-five percent of the worldwide market for these chips.

MOSAID held patents on the circuit technology that was used in the manufacture of DRAM chips. In 2001 and 2002, MOSAID sent a series of four letters to Micron inviting Micron to license MOSAID’s patents.

After sending letters to all four of the manufacturers who declined to enter into licenses with MOSAID, MOSAID began patent infringement litigation against each of the manufacturers. MOSAID first sued Samsung. Infineon then sued MOSAID for declaratory judgment of noninfringement. MOSAID and Samsung settled. MOSAID then sued Hynix, who later settled. MOSAID then settled with Infineon. In each settlement, MOSAID granted the manufacturer a license under its patents. MOSAID made statements in public and in its 2005 annual report that it intended to “aggressively” pursue all other DRAM manufacturers to force them to license MOSAID’s technology, and that it would be “unrelenting” in its litigation strategy. The industry believed that Micron was the next target of MOSAID.       

In July 2005, Micron filed a declaratory judgment in the Northern District of California seeking a declaration of noninfringement of 14 patents owned by MOSAID. The following day, MOSAID sued Micron and two other defendants, in the Eastern District of Texas, for infringing seven patents.  MOSAID later added one more defendant and three more patents to the Texas action.            

MOSAID then moved to dismiss the California action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted MOSAID’s motion on the grounds that Micron had no reasonable apprehension of being sued by MOSAID. The district court found that there was no evidence of threats from MOSAID to Micron for the last four years, no threats from MOSAID to Micron’s customers, and no public statements by MOSAID that it intented to sue Micron.           

Micron appealed and the Federal Circuit reversed.           

The court first held that the district court in California did have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The district court had applied the wrong test – the “reasonable apprehension” test is not the proper test, according to the Supreme Court in MedImmune. The correct test, which the appellate court repeatedly stated “is more lenient,” is “whether the facts alleged under all the circumstances show that there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Micron, quoting MedImmune, 127 S.Ct. at 771.            

In applying this test, a district court must look at the evidence of all of the circumstances. In this case, the evidence included the series of letters from MOSAID to Micron, the previous suits from MOSAID against the other three manufacturers, and MOSAID’s public statements of its intent to aggressively pursue litigation against the remaining manufacturers.         



Icahn Plans More Legal Action Against Motorola
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/24 20:07

Carl Icahn and his affiliates on Monday said it is filing a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking a court order requiring Motorola to make certain materials demanded by Icahn from Motorola available for inspection.

The materials that Icahn is seeking include are any board and committee minutes and documents relating to the service and selection of Motorola's senior officers, the prospects or strategy of Motorola's Mobile Devices business and the realignment of its business regarding Mobile Devices, including the potential spinoff of the Mobile Devices business.

Icahn also seeks to include documents, if any, provided to Motorola's Board of Directors regarding matters disclosed in certain of Motorola's press releases and conference calls concerning the performance of Motorola and documents showing the use of Motorola's aircraft and other property by members of senior management, the board of directors and their families.

In addition, Carl Icahn and his affiliates released a letter to stockholders of Motorola, Inc., requesting stockholders to elect Frank Biondi, William Hambrecht, Lionel Kimerling and Keith Meister as directors of Motorola at the 2008 annual meeting of stockholders of Motorola.



2 Held in Millionaire Developer's Death
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/23 22:27
A chauffeur and his cousin are being charged in the 2006 stabbing death of a millionaire developer accused of real estate fraud, police said Saturday.

Andrew Kissel, 46, was found tied up and stabbed to death in his Greenwich mansion just days before he was to plead guilty in a multimillion-dollar fraud case.

Carlos Trujillo, who was Kissel's driver, and his cousin, Leonard Trujillo, have been arrested in connection with the developer's death, Greenwich Police Chief David Ridberg said Saturday.

"There is still a lot of information to be gathered and facts to be discerned," Ridberg said in a written statement announcing the arrests.

The arrest warrants are sealed. The chief said more information would be released Monday.

Leonard Trujillo, 21, is charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder, police said. Carlos Trujillo, 47, is charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

Attorney Lindy Urso, who represented Carlos Trujillo shortly after Kissel's death could not be reached late Saturday. Information was not immediately available on whether Leonard Trujillo had an attorney.



Doubt Arises over Breathalyzer Source Code
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/21 20:22
An attorney for a Minnesota man accused of drunken driving says he doesn't think the manufacturer of a breathalyzer will meet a court-imposed deadline of August 17 to turn over its source code. If that happens, his client could go free.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled late last month that source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, made by a Kentucky-based company called CMI, must be handed to defense attorneys for use in a case involving charges of third-degree DUI against a man named Dale Lee Underdahl.

In this case, the high court concluded that language in the contract between CMI and the state indicates the source code belongs by extension to Minnesota, rejecting the state public safety commissioner's earlier argument that the state was not entitled to the code because of its confidential, copyrighted and proprietary nature. The decision effectively means it's now up to the state to do what it takes to enforce that contract--including suing the company, if necessary.

But as for when the code would be turned over, "I guess the answer is probably never," attorney Jeffrey Sheridan said in a telephone interview Friday. That's because state officials, he added, "haven't given me any indication that the manufacturer has changed its mind."

It remains unclear what steps Minnesota officials plan to take, as representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. CMI also did not return calls for comment on Friday.



Settlement talks fail between al-Kidd, feds
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/20 18:03
Court-ordered settlement talks between a man detained in a federal case and the government have failed.

Attorneys on both sides told a U.S. District judge this week that no settlement was reached. That means the lawsuit brought by Abdullah al-Kidd against the United States, former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and others will likely go to trial.

Al-Kidd filed the lawsuit in 2005, claiming his civil rights were violated when the government improperly used material witness laws to detain him for two weeks.

The government has maintained it did nothing wrong.

Al-Kidd worked on behalf of the Islamic Assembly of North America, a Michigan-based charitable group federal investigators allege funneled money to activities supporting terrorism.



Legal battle rages over whether ankles exist
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/19 18:04
For every foot, there's an ankle. Or not.

In Texas, that all depends on a legal battle between medical doctors and podiatrists, who both claim the ankle as their turf. The debate has raged to the point that the two sides disagree in court on whether the ankle actually exists.

A state appeals court recently sided with medical doctors when it determined that the state board that licenses podiatrists exceeded its authority in defining the ankle as part of the foot.

"You don't have an ankle," said Mark Hanna, a lawyer for the Texas Podiatric Medical Association. "The foot actually includes the ankle. If you took the foot off the leg, there is nothing lying there that's the ankle."

Not so, said Dr. David Teuscher, an orthopedic surgeon in Beaumont who said treating the ankle is complicated enough to require medical school training.

"If they say the ankle doesn't exist, why do they want to operate on it?" asked Teuscher, immediate past president of the Texas Orthopaedic Association. "Everyone knows what an ankle is."

The Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners bypassed the Legislature to create its ankle-is-part-of-the-foot definition in 2001. Podiatrists say they've been treating ankles for decades and accuse medical doctors of trying to limit competition. The Texas Medical Association argues podiatrists should stick to corns, calluses and diabetic foot care.

The physicians group interprets last Friday's ruling as saying the ankle and foot are separate. The podiatrists group says the ruling doesn't go that far and plans to appeal. About 900 podiatrists await the outcome.



[PREV] [1] ..[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] [NEXT]
All
Headline Legal News
Legal Topics
Legal Business
Attorney News
Court News
Court Watch
Areas of Focus
Legal Interview
Opinions
Ugandan pop star, a government cr..
Court document details moments be..
EU steps up action against Poland..
Court: EPA violated law on harmfu..
Zimbabwe's opposition challenges ..
N Carolina Supreme Court race law..
Court, regulators clash over uran..
Nevada Supreme Court taking up ex..
Supreme Court examines Kentucky's..
Child remains found at New Mexico..
Filing period opens for West Virg..
Oklahoma lawsuit against opioid m..
The Latest: Zimbabwe's president ..
SC Supreme Court to decide if ele..
With scant record, Supreme Court ..
Officer involved in militia leade..
Donald Trump Jr., wife due in cou..
Court: Mud buggy race operators w..
High court gives mixed verdict on..
N Carolina elections board back i..




Santa Ana Workers' Compensation Lawyers
www.gentryashtonlaw.com
Chicago Truck Drivers Lawyer
Chicago Workers' Comp Attorneys
www.krol-law.com
Downtown Manhattan Business Law Attorneys
Breach of Contract Lawyers
www.woodslaw.com
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Chicago Business Law Attorney
Corporate Litigation Attorneys
www.rothlawgroup.com
Surry County Criminal Defense Lawyers
Yadkin County Family Law Attorneys
www.dirussolaw.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
Law Firm Web Design Templates
Lawyer Website Templates
www.webpromo.com
   Legal Resource
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media.
 
 
 
Copyright © ClickTheLaw.com. All Rights Reserved. The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Click The Law. as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. By using the www.clickthelaw.com you agree to be bound by these Terms & Conditions.

Law Firm Web Design by Lawyer Website Design - Lawyer Web Site Design That Works