Here Are Big Pharma's Go-To Law Firms for Opioid Marketing Defense
ALM takes a look at which law firms the pharmaceutical industry is turning to for representation in this nationwide spate of opioid marketing litigation.
November 15, 2017 at 06:21 PM
4 minute read
When 28 Wisconsin counties sued several pharmaceutical companies last week, they became among the latest government entities in a wave of litigation accusing the industry of contributing to the prescription opioid and heroin addiction epidemic gripping the country.
From California to New Hampshire, dozens of lawsuits in federal, state and county courts are alleging that Big Pharma inundated the country with painkillers by deceiving doctors and the public about their safety. Many of the cases were brought by plaintiffs lawyers who have teamed up with governments to sue the companies through contingency-fee agreements.
But the recent spate of litigation over the companies' targeted campaigns allegedly claiming that their opioids could be prescribed nonaddictively also has stirred up a significant amount of defense work for Big Law firms. ALM examined court filings in some of these cases to see which firms appear regularly. (The following is by no means a comprehensive list of defense firms that are representing Big Pharma in opioid-marketing litigation.)
OxyContin and Dilaudid manufacturer Purdue Pharma Inc. brought out the big guns: Serving on its legal defense team is Patrick Fitzgerald, a former—and longest-serving—U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago and a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom since 2012. Fitzgerald is arguably best known for his role as the special prosecutor appointed to investigate leaks in the Valerie Plame matter. He also led the high-profile investigation and prosecution of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on federal corruption charges. Purdue also regularly turns to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for its defense work in this area.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., maker of Actiq and Fentora, two fentanyl medications, likewise uses Quinn Emanuel for this opioid-related defense work. But the Pennsylvania-based subsidiary of an Israeli company also turns to Philadelphia-based Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, employing lawyers in several of the firm's offices on the various litigation matters.
The main go-to firm for Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., which makes Duragesic and Nucynta, also fentanyl medications, is West Coast-based O'Melveny & Myers, led by partner Charles Lifland. And it's not Lifland's first time defending the drug company over marketing claims. He was part of the litigation team that in 2014 was instrumental in reversing $1.4 billion in civil penalties and attorney fees against J&J and a subsidiary over marketing of the antipsychotic medication Risperdal. According to Lifland's firm bio, leading technology, energy, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., J&J and Merck & Co. Inc., turn to the Los Angeles-based partner for their most important litigation matters.
For Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., maker of Opana and Percocet, it's generally Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer all the time. Attorney Anthony Boccanfuso and partner Ingo Sprie, both in the firm's New York office, are handling some of the more recently filed suits, including one brought by the state of Ohio in May, as well as dozens filed on behalf of various New York counties over the past few months.
A relatively new twist in the opioid-marketing litigation is to go after the drug distributors, namely Amerisource Bergen Corp., Cardinal Health and McKesson Corp., rather than the manufacturers. The first government entity to do so was the Cherokee Nation, which alleged in an April lawsuit that the companies violated tribal and federal laws by turning a blind eye as prescription painkillers flooded the streets. The drug distributing giants have turned to various firms in Tulsa, Oklahoma, including Crowe & Dunlevy for Amerisource Bergen; Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson for McKesson; and Hall Estill and Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler Jeter Barnett & Ray for Cardinal Health. But Cardinal Health didn't keep it all in Oklahoma. Also listed as counsel on the company's June 12 motion to dismiss are three attorneys from the Washington, D.C., office of Williams & Connolly.
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 AllArguing Class Actions: Meet and Confer Abuses as Defendants' Litigation Strategy
7 minute read'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute read'Opaque and Unfair': 9th Circuit Rejects Live Nation's Rules for Mass Arbitrations
'Significant Relief': Big Law Firms Represent UFC in $375M Antitrust Settlement Agreement
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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