Eli Lilly & Company - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Eli Lilly & Company Summary: The original Complaint charges the Defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, for misrepresenting to investors known adverse side-effects associated with the use of Zyprexa, the Company's best-selling drug and by failing to disclose a systematic and illegal campaign by the Company to increase Zyprexa sales by marketing Zyprexa for unapproved, off-label uses. The Complaint alleges that for over a decade, Eli Lilly knew of links between Zyprexa and extreme weight gain and diabetes. In addition, during the Class Period, the Company engaged in a scheme to market Zyprexa for uses that were not approved by the FDA, in violation of FDA regulations that proscribed such marketing. Federal and state regulators have commenced law suits against Lilly based on these marketing schemes and the Company has denied any wrongdoing.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, in the face of mounting independent research connecting Zyprexa to diabetes and weight gain, and lawsuits by persons who suffered these side-effects, Lilly emphatically denied any such link. Yet, as public agencies raised warnings about the safety of Zyprexa, and Lilly settled product liability lawsuits involving the drug, Lilly's stock lost more than $30 billion in market value in connection with the fraud.

On June 26, 2007, the Court entered the Order Consolidating the actions, appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiffs' selection of lead counsel. On August 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Sealed "Confidential Consolidated Securities Class Action Complaint.” The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On November 13, 2007, Senior Judge Jack B. Weinstein signed the Order converting the defendant’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment solely on the issue of statute of limitations. The remainder of defendant's motion to dismiss is not converted. On April 30, 2008, Senior Judge Weinstein signed the Memorandum, Order and Judgment granting the motion for summary judgment. The case dismissed. On May 5, 2008, a Supplemental Memorandum and Order was filed. Clerk’s Judgment was entered on May 6, 2008. The case is dismissed and costs and disbursements are awarded to defendants.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 2834
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Major Drugs

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Eli Lilly & Company
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	LLY
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.lilly.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Robert A. Smith, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 07-CV-01310
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Jack B. Weinstein
DATE FILED: 03/28/2007	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/28/2002	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/22/2006
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Grant & Eisenhofer (Wilmington) 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801 (voice) 302.622.7000, (fax) 302.622.7100, lawyers@gelaw.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Walnut Creek) 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598 (voice) 925.945.0200, (fax) 925.945.8792, info@sbtklaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/28/2007
Order Consolidating Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Approving Lead Plaintiff's Selection Of Lead Counsel
Type: Order		Date on the document: 06/26/2007

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Robert A. Smith, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 07-CV-01310
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Jack B. Weinstein
DATE FILED: 08/21/2007	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/28/2002	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/22/2006
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Grant & Eisenhofer (New York) 45 Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10111 (voice) 646.722.8500, (fax) 646.722.8500, lawyers@gelaw.com Grant & Eisenhofer (Wilmington) 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801 (voice) 302.622.7000, (fax) 302.622.7100, lawyers@gelaw.com Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Walnut Creek) 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598 (voice) 925.945.0200, (fax) 925.945.8792, info@sbtklaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/13/2007
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/30/2008
Supplemental Memorandum & Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/05/2008
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/06/2008
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/06/2008

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
Case Name and/or Number: John Valentine, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/05/2007

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�