Opioid Maker Insys Will Pay $225M Deal to Settle DOJ Civil and Criminal Charges
The agreement, announced Wednesday, resolves civil and criminal allegations that Insys bribed medical professionals to use its opioid painkiller.
June 05, 2019 at 08:03 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Insys Therapeutics has agreed to pay $225 million to resolve civil and criminal actions brought by the U.S. Department of Justice over alleged kickbacks and marketing of its opioid painkiller.
Under the deal, announced Wednesday, Insys agreed to pay $195 million to settle allegations in five separate whistleblower lawsuits that it violated the False Claims Act. Its operating subsidiary also will plead guilty to five counts of mail fraud and pay a $2 million fine and $28 million in forfeiture. Both parts of the settlement center on Subsys, a fentanyl spray that Insys manufactured and that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in 2012 for the treatment of chronic pain in cancer patients.
“The opioid epidemic has devastated communities and ravaged families across this country,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt of the Department of Justice's Civil Division, which prosecuted the case along with the U.S. attorney's offices in Massachusetts and the Central District of California, as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General. “The Department of Justice is committed to using the legal tools at our disposal to combat the illegal marketing and distribution of opioids, including fentanyl. Today's settlement sends a strong message to pharmaceutical manufacturers that the kinds of illegal conduct that we have alleged in this case will not be tolerated. I want to assure the families and communities ravaged by this epidemic that the Department of Justice will hold opioid manufacturers accountable for their actions.”
The agreement was “in the best interests of the company and its stakeholders,” according to a statement released by Insys. “These agreements include a Corporate Integrity Agreement and Conditional Exclusion Release between Insys and OIG, in which OIG agrees it will not seek to exclude Insys Therapeutics from key healthcare programs if it complies with the terms of the agreement, thus enabling the company to continue providing its products to patients who depend on them.”
The agreement excludes cases brought by several cities, counties and attorneys general against Insys, one of several opioid manufacturers. Lead plaintiffs' attorneys in the multidistrict litigation, which includes 1,800 lawsuits, released a statement responding to the Insys agreement.
“For years, Insys Therapeutics engaged in illegal, unethical, and reckless business tactics that prioritized opioid sales over patient safety,” wrote Paul Farrell, of Greene, Ketchum, Farrell, Bailey & Tweel; Paul Hanly of Simmons Hanly Conroy; and Joe Rice of Motley Rice. “With today's guilty plea and settlement with the Justice Department, the company itself has admitted to the type of corporate behavior that ignited and enflamed the opioid epidemic. To the 1,800 communities we represent as leaders of the federal opioid litigation, today represents an important and encouraging marker in our legal fight against 22 opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies. Let's be clear: companies like Insys cannot evade accountability. They must be part of the solution to a crisis we believe they bear responsibility for causing.”
The deal comes after Insys disclosed last month that it might file for bankruptcy protection and could not afford the legal costs related to a Department of Justice's investigation.
Under a charging document, prosecutors said Insys and its operating subsidiary began paying bribes and kickbacks to medical professionals, under the guise of being “speaking programs,” to increase marketing of Subsys from August 2012 to June 2015. The deferred prosecution agreement, expected to last five years, comes after five former Insys executives, including billionaire founder John Kapoor, were convicted last month of charges relating to the marketing of Subsys.
The civil portion of the agreement resolves lawsuits in which the United States had intervened alleging Insys violated the False Claims Act by paying kickbacks to physicians and nurse practitioners to prescribe Subsys to their patients.
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
© 2024 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 AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Tips From—and About—the New Judges on the Northern District of California Bench
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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