About
“No Injury” Consumer Fraud Claims Brought As Class Actions Against
Drug and Device Manufacturers Have Never Been More Prevalent
A faculty
of drug and device litigators will provide you with the special
skills needed to defend against these novel and complex claims
in today’s unrelenting litigious environment. Attorneys speaking
at this conference have been involved in medical monitoring claims,
consumer fraud litigation by state Attorneys General, civil fraud
claims by putative consumer and insurer classes filed under state
consumer fraud statutes and RICO, and the defense of other laws
and theories concerning Prozac® , Stadol NS, PPA, Baycol, Vioxx,
Fen-Phen, Neurontin, OxyContin, OTC medications, implantable drug
delivery systems, ventilators, surgical closure devices, surgical
instruments and equipment, orthopedic fixation devices, intrauterine
contraceptive device (IUD), weight-loss medications, antidepressants,
hormone replacement therapy, cough and cold medicines, surgical
equipment and instruments, medical device implants, cholesterol
medication and many others.
Cost reimbursement litigation, monetary restitution, consumer
fraud – all aliases for what drug and device counsel have come
to know as the troublesome “no injury” case. The number of these
cases currently being brought against drug and device manufacturers
is staggering and the threat can come from state attorneys general
and/or plaintiff’s attorneys who quickly follow suit. Alleging
no personal injury per se, but rather some sort of economic harm
caused by alleged fraudulent or deceptive practices, these cases
present unique challenges for drug and device companies to overcome.
Negative
post-approval study results or other “incidents” that take place
while the product is on the market, exposure to negative publicity,
multi-jurisdictional class complications, and the threat of simultaneous
or follow-on government investigation only serve to complicate
the "no injury" case. Moreover, defense
counsel are forced to defend these claims at a time when it is
still unsettled how the courts will receive the assertion of the
learned intermediary doctrine in the context of drug and device
consumer fraud claims and what the true impact of recent and expected
decisions on federal preemption will be on the viability of consumer
fraud claims.
In this unsettled, high-risk and high-stakes environment,
drug and device litigators must have an in-depth and complete understanding
of the developments affecting consumer fraud claims in the industry
today. ACI’s Drug and Device Forum on Defending Consumer Fraud
Economic Injury Claims publication will provide you with the latest information
on how to successfully tackle the “no injury” case delivered by
your colleagues who are on the forefront of the current consumer
fraud landscape. Learn what warning signs you should be
on the lookout for and what you can do to minimize collateral damage
to your company, without conceding to a claim that could be worth
millions to your company in restitution, reimbursement or medical
monitoring expenses.
About
“No Injury” Consumer Fraud Claims Brought As Class Actions Against
Drug and Device Manufacturers Have Never Been More Prevalent
A faculty
of drug and device litigators will provide you with the special
skills needed to defend against these novel and complex claims
in today’s unrelenting litigious environment. Attorneys speaking
at this conference have been involved in medical monitoring claims,
consumer fraud litigation by state Attorneys General, civil fraud
claims by putative consumer and insurer classes filed under state
consumer fraud statutes and RICO, and the defense of other laws
and theories concerning Prozac® , Stadol NS, PPA, Baycol, Vioxx,
Fen-Phen, Neurontin, OxyContin, OTC medications, implantable drug
delivery systems, ventilators, surgical closure devices, surgical
instruments and equipment, orthopedic fixation devices, intrauterine
contraceptive device (IUD), weight-loss medications, antidepressants,
hormone replacement therapy, cough and cold medicines, surgical
equipment and instruments, medical device implants, cholesterol
medication and many others.
Cost reimbursement litigation, monetary restitution, consumer
fraud – all aliases for what drug and device counsel have come
to know as the troublesome “no injury” case. The number of these
cases currently being brought against drug and device manufacturers
is staggering and the threat can come from state attorneys general
and/or plaintiff’s attorneys who quickly follow suit. Alleging
no personal injury per se, but rather some sort of economic harm
caused by alleged fraudulent or deceptive practices, these cases
present unique challenges for drug and device companies to overcome.
Negative
post-approval study results or other “incidents” that take place
while the product is on the market, exposure to negative publicity,
multi-jurisdictional class complications, and the threat of simultaneous
or follow-on government investigation only serve to complicate
the "no injury" case. Moreover, defense
counsel are forced to defend these claims at a time when it is
still unsettled how the courts will receive the assertion of the
learned intermediary doctrine in the context of drug and device
consumer fraud claims and what the true impact of recent and expected
decisions on federal preemption will be on the viability of consumer
fraud claims.
In this unsettled, high-risk and high-stakes environment,
drug and device litigators must have an in-depth and complete understanding
of the developments affecting consumer fraud claims in the industry
today. ACI’s Drug and Device Forum on Defending Consumer Fraud
Economic Injury Claims publication will provide you with the latest information
on how to successfully tackle the “no injury” case delivered by
your colleagues who are on the forefront of the current consumer
fraud landscape. Learn what warning signs you should be
on the lookout for and what you can do to minimize collateral damage
to your company, without conceding to a claim that could be worth
millions to your company in restitution, reimbursement or medical
monitoring expenses.
Contents & Contributors
ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE
CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUES TO DEVELOP AN AGGRESSIVE
DEFENSE STRATEGY
James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Kansas City, MO)
CLASS ACTIONS AND ARBITRATIONS LITIGATION HOTBEDS & SOME ENFORCEMENT TRENDS
J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Philadelphia, PA)
PREEMPTION AND LEARNED INTERMEDIARY DEFENSES
Dwight J. Davis, King & Spalding (Atlanta, GA)
REFUTING EMERGING THEORIES OF CONSUMER FRAUD IN PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND MEDICAL DEVICES
Debra S. Dunne, Stradley Ronon Steven s& Young, LLP (Philadelphia, PA)
IDENTIFYING THE “CONSUMER” IN “NO INJURY” CONSUMER
FRAUD CLAIMS
Christopher C. Palermo, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (New York, NY)
THE “CONSUMER” IN CONSUMER FRAUD LITIGATION
Thomas P. Hanrahan, Sidley Austin LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
AN INTRODUCTION TO MEDICAL MONITORING
Amy Payne, Jones Day (Dallas, TX)
MEDICAL MONITORING CLASS ACTIONS: FROM FEN-PHEN TO VIOXX –
EXAMINING THE DECLINING VIABILITY OF PHARMACEUTICAL
AND MEDICAL DEVICE MEDICAL MONITORING CLASS ACTIONS
Debra M. Perry, McCarter & English, LLP (Newark, NJ)
EVALUATING THE INTERSECTION OF REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND
CONSUMER FRAUD LITIGATION: INCORPORATING RECENT CHANGES
TO FDA REGULATIONS AND INCREASED GOVERNMENT INTEREST INTO
YOUR DEFENSE STRATEGY
Linda A. Willett, Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold LLP (New York, NY)
José A. Isasi, II, Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Chicago, IL)
THE EFFECT OF RECENT PREEMPTION DECISIONS ON THE DEFENSE OF CONSUMER FRAUD CLAIMS IN DRUG AND DEVICE LITIGATION
Jennifer Cairns, McGuire Woods LLP (Richmond, VA)
Patricia E. Lowry, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. (West Palm Beach, FL)
Julie Coletti, Bayer Corporation (Pittsburgh, PA)
MARY SHELLEY WOULD BE PROUD: CONSUMER FRAUD AND THE NEW FRANKENSTEIN’S MONSTER
Gavin J. Rooney, Lowenstein Sandler PC (Roseland, NJ)
George G. Gordon, Dechert LLP (Princeton, NJ)
Publication Details