Johnson & Johnson heads back to court in Risperdal suit
J&J will head back to a Texas courtroom to further discuss the $158 million settlement it had reached with the state in January.
March 26, 2012 at 06:58 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The drama surrounding Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) antipsychotic drug Risperdal is far from over.
Tomorrow, J&J will head back to a Texas courtroom to further discuss the $158 million settlement it had reached with the state in January. The state-specific suit would fully resolve all Risperdal-related claims in Texas, J&J said in January.
“As far as we knew, we had a solid settlement,” Tom Kelley, a spokesman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, told Thomson Reuters. “We'll have more information on Tuesday about what has caused [J&J] some concerns.”
The case dates back to 2004 when the U.S. government began a civil investigation against J&J claiming the pharmaceutical company marketed the schizophrenic drug for unapproved illnesses, including bipolar disorder, dementia, and mood and anxiety disorders. Soon after, individual states, including Texas, began suing J&J over Risperdal marketing. The Texas suit and settlement, which was the first among all state Risperdal litigation, does not involve other state or federal litigation over Risperdal.
The case's plaintiff—Allen Jones, who blew the whistle on J&J's marketing practices—told Thomson Reuters he believes the pharmaceutical company is going to try to reduce the amount of the settlement he and his lawyer receive. J&J “has reneged on the agreement and it's back in court. They are trying to produce a chilling effect on the ability of whistleblowers to come forward,” he said.
Before J&J lost its patent on Risperdal, it was the company's best-selling drug.
The drama surrounding
Tomorrow, J&J will head back to a Texas courtroom to further discuss the $158 million settlement it had reached with the state in January. The state-specific suit would fully resolve all Risperdal-related claims in Texas, J&J said in January.
“As far as we knew, we had a solid settlement,” Tom Kelley, a spokesman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, told Thomson Reuters. “We'll have more information on Tuesday about what has caused [J&J] some concerns.”
The case dates back to 2004 when the U.S. government began a civil investigation against J&J claiming the pharmaceutical company marketed the schizophrenic drug for unapproved illnesses, including bipolar disorder, dementia, and mood and anxiety disorders. Soon after, individual states, including Texas, began suing J&J over Risperdal marketing. The Texas suit and settlement, which was the first among all state Risperdal litigation, does not involve other state or federal litigation over Risperdal.
The case's plaintiff—Allen Jones, who blew the whistle on J&J's marketing practices—told Thomson Reuters he believes the pharmaceutical company is going to try to reduce the amount of the settlement he and his lawyer receive. J&J “has reneged on the agreement and it's back in court. They are trying to produce a chilling effect on the ability of whistleblowers to come forward,” he said.
Before J&J lost its patent on Risperdal, it was the company's best-selling drug.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute read
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
